Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 7th, 2012 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Aalaya and Neutral awareness
Content:
Daniel Arraes said:
Can one say that, according to Dzogchen, Aalaya (kun-gzhi) and the neutral awareness (shes-pa-lung-ma-bstan) are the same thing?


Namdrol said:
No, they are different. The ālaya is ignorance.

krodha wrote:
I've seen ālaya roughly translated to (or said to represent) a sort of storehouse or warehouse consciousness, is it due to this notion that it is essentially ignorance?


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: Conventional/Ultimate Valid Cognitions
Content:
krodha wrote:
A valid cognition on the conventional level would just be the most accurate description or representation of ultimate cognition one can convey using concepts. Conventional or relative truths always correlate with the use of linear thought processes and language. So in truth, a 'conventional truth' or valid conventional cognition is never really a "truth", just an accurate account of the ultimate.

A valid ultimate cognition can never really be known apart from the experience itself. It's like describing the taste of an apple. The verbal, conceptual description is the conventional. The actual, sensual taste is the ultimate or absolute truth. The description of the taste obviously never properly captures the actual taste. In terms of peak experiences or realizations in the dharma, a metaphor of attempting to describe the color red to a man blind since birth can be used. Having never seen before the man would have no reference level with which to gauge your description. So the same principle goes for those attempting to describe ultimate truths or cognitions in the dharma as well. A nondual experience or liberation or what have you can be described conventionally, but the ultimate cognition or nature is only to be actualized in your own experience.

If thought or reasoning are being implemented to understand or break something down it's always only conventional. An experience of an ultimate cognition is just direct sensual experience divorced from/prior to translation or interpretation in thought/language etc.. And an ultimate truth or experience in reference to a realization or liberation will be explicitly evident beyond any doubts. When those things pop up more often than not you won't have to ask, it is just an innate intuitive certainty.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Title: Re: Transmission on the Internet
Content:
Sönam said:
No one simply notice that all what happens (or not) was simply our circumstances, that we hear what we were supposed to hear, at the right place, at the right moment.

Sönam

Mr. G said:
No, I noticed it Sonam.  However, it doesn't mean we become fatalists, for improvements can be put in place for the future

krodha wrote:
Agreed, I think it's just constructive criticism... Undoubtably nothing can be done to change the circumstances regarding the nature of the connection in these past days, and if this is how the situation will remain for the time being we can all understand and accept that. However, for the sake of Rinpoche taking the time to teach and for the benefit of all interested in learning (in addition to those who work hard to make it all possible) it seems addressing the connection is only logical.

The point is to properly deliver the teaching. Just like the implementation of translators who are there to help in communicating better, the implementation of a proper system to deliver the message over the web is also a pertinent issue.

So I agree we all only heard what we were supposed to hear, because what we heard, is what we heard. Worrying about that is a futile endeavor. As you already said though, there's nothing wrong with improvement!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 6th, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'll tell you what, that connection this morning was shot. Jeopardized assimilation of the whole teaching going on for anyone who wasn't in the same room as Rinpoche. I resorted to just remaining focused and open to rinpoche because I know he was putting it out there to be received. I do hope whatever the nature of the problem is with the connection gets resolved. Other than that it's been an informative and interesting retreat!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 5th, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
krodha wrote:
I woke up for the start and put headphones on and then fell back asleep eventually and Norbu was in my dream giving the teaching and when he started the transmission Ron Paul was there repeating everything he said in deep voice overtone chanting, and his hair looked like docs from back to the future, it was pretty epic.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Title: Re: 2 types of selflessness
Content:
sangyey said:
Of the two - 'me' or 'mine' which one of them is the more grosser and which one of them is the more subtler?

krodha wrote:
Me and mine are two aspects of the same thing. Can't have one without the other. If you use fire as a metaphor the 'me' and 'mine' would be the flames and the heat. I'm not sure which would be considered more subtle and which is grosser. The most important thing is finding out what the 'me' and 'mine' depend on. Much like fire depends on fuel, you need to investigate what the 'me' and 'mine' rely on for fuel. Remove the fuel and extinguish the fire.

Cut the root of a tree and the leaves will wither; Cut the root of your mind and samsara falls.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: 2 types of selflessness
Content:
White Lotus said:
for example when i look at my hands there is no sense of 'mine' whatsoever; whereas in the past there was.

krodha wrote:
That's funny, when this first happened to me the very first thing I remember was looking at my hands (I was driving) and being like "what the f*** are these?" And then I remember being amazed that I had ever thought there was anyone here at all. It made me feel like I had been living a lie.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 2nd, 2012 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
tomamundsen said:
Well, from my understanding, ChNNR doesn't have his students do ngondro and just directly starts teaching Dzogchen. However, the lama I'm practicing with teaches anyone who isn't going to die within a short period of time to do a ngondro and holds off on the Dzogchen teachings.

krodha wrote:
Being that one could die at any moment this idea of holding off on dzogchen unless someone is declared terminally ill is a strange idea in my opinion. Any of us could die within a short period of time... today... tomorrow... a month from now... not everyone has the luxury of knowing when death will come for them. If you have the interest in the dzogchen teachings then you're ready in my opinion, why delay the inevitable?

Also being that you have access to ChNN's teachings, again I'd say take advantage. Rinpoche's health has unfortunately been a bit of a rollercoaster the past couple years... all of our time is limited and the opportunity to receive his teachings is not guaranteed to last or endure through your ngondro. There's no harm in listening to him now, it can only be beneficial.

tomamundsen said:
He gave an analogy about how you need a special jewel container to hold a snow lion's milk and how the ngondro transforms us into this special jewel container so that we can receive Dzogchen teachings without them just immediately slipping through our grasp.

krodha wrote:
Part of the ngondro is to show your dedication and genuine interest in the teachings. The ability to complete it shows maturity and readiness to understand Dzogchen. Otherwise an immature mind with no discipline may interpret dzogchen as a green light to throw caution to the wind and act however they'd like and/or fall into nihilism. One has to be ripe to properly receive these teachings, so look at ngondro as assured and expedited ripening. The special jewel container is discipline, maturity, dedication, compassion and an overall readiness to know Dzogchen for the benefit of oneself and all other beings. Again your interest shows readiness in my opinion, just listen with a humble mind and open heart and you cannot go wrong.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Title: Re: 2 types of selflessness
Content:
sangyey said:
Thank you.

And then these two ways of looking at self, i.e., 'I' or 'mine' belong to selflessness of persons?

krodha wrote:
Yes but just as TMingyur said above, the implications associated with the selflessness of the person(i.e. subjective self) are directly related to the emptiness or selflessness of other-than-the-person(i.e. the objective world). Because to posit the inherent existence of a "person" or "I", automatically creates everything that is not the "person" or "I". Self goes hand in hand with other, they're mutually interdependent co-arisen concepts. Just as black goes with white, up with down and left with right. So it's a package deal, if you're a self then there is automatically stuff in experience which is not you by default, it's a dichotomy. Removal of the self(subject) automatically removes the world(object). This notion of separation which dominates experience is the basis for suffering, it arises from avidyā or ignorance of our true condition. The purpose of the dharma is to remove this delusion.

There is no self, but when that truth is conceptualized and believed to be true, it is automatically falsified, because the very self that statement and idea attempts to negate is reborn through attachment or aversion to that concept or belief. So seek to comprehend these truths but hold them lightly, and when the time is right let go... apart from attachment and aversion you are unborn.

All dharmas are like reflected images, clear and pure, without turbulence, ungraspable, inexpressible, truly arisen from cause and from action.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 31st, 2012 at 5:31 AM
Title: Re: 2 types of selflessness
Content:
sangyey said:
The phrase ' self and that which belongs to self ' does this refer to me and mine respectively? And if so then i assume they would both belong to the classification selflessness of person?

krodha wrote:
Yes refers to "I and mine" or "me and mine".

"Self"(I) meaning the personal subjective entity or sense that one is located 'here' within-the-body or as-the-body(and sensations/sensory perceptions, thought, memory etc.. which are attributed to embodiment).

And then "that which belongs to self"(mine) referring to appearances which are attributed to self volition; such as "I am doing" "I am seeing" "I am feeling" "my thoughts" "my actions" etc... and imputed objects the self is believed to possess; such as "my body" "my car" "my house" "my arm" etc...


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 30th, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
padma norbu said:
heehee, I should do this retreat just so you can all see just how bad the results can be... but, seriously, thanks again for the info. Will steer clear of this one for sure.

krodha wrote:
Why steer clear? It's not often opportunities like this come up, even if you receive the wang, lung and tri and don't do the practice at this point in time it's still good to receive the teaching... you may change your mind in the future and then you're already locked and loaded. Not everyone has access to teachings like this, or teachers like ChNN, you have the opportunity, I'd say take advantage of it. Authentic teachers are few and far between and life is delicate and can be lost at any moment, now is the time!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
swampflower said:
1.  "What is there to change?"...Everything

krodha wrote:
You're absolutely right from a conventional point of view.

Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify, Rootless, they(things) have no fixed abode; they arise totally from the cause of ignorance, utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end. - Nagarjuna

swampflower said:
2.  "Change must move against a stagnant background to be change."...Change is the passing away of something that has arisen and the arising of something new from something that has passed away.  There is no "background" necessary...except for emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Yes again you're correct but my statements were geared towards very subtle and minute details of experience in the theme of abandoning false imputation.  I was attempting to frame the way change seems to arise in experience via the use of projected thought and memory. Again, yadave was interested so its really just for conversational purposes because he seems to enjoy discussions like these as much as I do. And emptiness being empty itself cannot serve as a substantiated or fundamental background.

swampflower said:
3.  "To further negate the change of color; in our direct experience we never experience an unseen color."  ...We experience "unseen" colors all the time.  Ultraviolet gives us a sunburn.  Infrared keeps us toasty warm.  These wavelengths of light are color although unseen by humans.

krodha wrote:
True but again I'm attempting to convey a certain perception of experience. I'm covering all my bases in a way so yadave can try to understand what I'm attempting to describe. In the picture I'm attempting to paint; ultraviolet being imperceptible would not be a part of what I'm describing, I'm only using elements of direct sensual  experience... what directly appears. So ultraviolet isn't a direct part of experience. There is direct evidence of contact with ultraviolet light as you said which would be a pain and a hue of redness appearing. But we'd only be concerned with those arisings and not the projected cause... Even though the projected cause arising as thought would be an aspect which could be integrated at a later time once one had a firm handle on the basic view. But like I said in that long description on the previous page where I was talking about salt I'm really only discussing what is immediately sensible. Not mediately. Same goes for infrared, that would be a mediate quality. So being unseen by humans, and absent in direct perception they aren't part of the discussion and view of experience I was portraying.

swampflower said:
This all seems far afield of the questions of emptiness.
Emptiness is not effectively intellectualized and analyzed through proposed theories of perception.

krodha wrote:
Yes somewhat, I think it's been agreed upon that this thread has evolved into a slightly different beast than it started as but we all seem to agree that it's remained productive and insightful. I started early on in this thread with my sentiments on emptiness, what you're reading lately is just my attempts at clarifying my points for yadave, I did originally go quality by quality to show how they are dependently originated in ones experience.

I'm not sure how you can say emptiness teachings are not effectively intellectualized and analyzed through proposed theories of perception, unless a proper teaching or discourse comes about how else would one arrive at a perception of emptiness? There are rare events where one gains insight from a peak experience spontaneously but that is rare. To add, everyone learns differently and everyone possesses different capacities for the teachings so what works for one person may not be appropriate for another. There is no staple approach to this type of thing, and I am certainly not claiming any authority in what I say. If it helps someone that is great! If not that is also perfectly ok. It makes sense to me so I'm only trying to share my view. It's validity or invalidity lies with you.

swampflower said:
These posts seem to be arguments against emptiness as a Buddhist understanding of reality.
As the Heart Sutra says "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness.  Emptiness is non other than form; form is non other than emptiness."
It makes no sense to try to separate the two.  Stated another way... There is no form without emptiness; there is no emptiness without form.

krodha wrote:
Interesting that you interpret these posts as being arguments against emptiness as a Buddhist understanding of reality. I would disagree but after all we are only sharing opinions and I respect yours.

Your other way of stating that(there is no form without emptiness...) is one way to interpret it; Conveying the natural dependency of form on emptiness in a positive-negative relational dichotomy. I however was approaching "form is emptiness" from the standpoint of form being precisely emptiness. And "emptiness is form" from the standpoint of 'emptiness being precisely form' in that emptiness as a concept IS form so therefore emptiness is also empty. And you're right it does make no sense to attempt to separate the two... Because they are not two.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 27th, 2012 at 4:42 AM
Title: Re: Shangpa Kagyu Teachings
Content:
lisehull said:
Has anyone read this book? If so, how complex is it? I am thinking of buying a copy but don't want to confuse my little brain.

Lise

krodha wrote:
Sometimes confusing the brain is a good thing! Dedication to understanding something like a text which may not make sense at first is always a good thing in my eyes. Causes your perceptions and thought processes to evolve and grow


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Hey Sunshine,

Your piece is more of a pointing out piece than Candrakirti's SevenFold Reasoning methinks.  There is one mod we may want to make, which should be fine since you disclaimed everything at the start.

asunthatneversets said:
The conclusion that the colors are external to us is based on the principle that these colors change over time.
...
But by looking at experience very directly it can actually be ascertained that this "otherness" is never a part of our experience.

yadave said:
This actually makes a bit of a contradiction in the interesting "world" you create.  I think we'd need to lobotomize memory as well to prevent one from remembering "change" in whatever sense we focused on, for otherwise, one will "know" something about what changes, and what does not, and that itself becomes self/other or change/nochange.  As Cone said way back in this thread, this distinction happens really early in most animals, probably genetic.  Anyway, I'm trying to gather all this into an effable thought and sometimes my brain works better when I'm sleeping (actually, I think I am sleeping) so these issues will no doubt receive further blathering in future.


Now I must return to the ever-satisfying deep sleep state.  Hasta manana.

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
Well what is there to change? Since the examination i proposed showed colors are vision, and vision is consciousness, and consciousness is empty. That in-and-of-itself negates the changing display of color. But to go further into it, the notion of change must be judged from a reference point of either less-changing or unchanging in the usual sense. But we found the less-changeful and/or changeless reference point to be inherently nonexistent. Change must move against a stagnant background to be change. There must be something to gauge the change... and we find nothing. Because you're right to know change requires memory to implement as a reference. But this is impossible. We don't have to lobotomize what is already lobotomized. We usually take memory to be an image 'of' a past event. Because we believe ourselves to be entities extended into time and space. This is not the case. A memory thought is always an ever-fresh appearance. It seems to resemble a previous state but it is just an image which appears in the present timeless moment. It is only an image. When the image appears, under the delusion of time we conceive ourselves to be a subject witnessing or possessing this image and then project that it is evidence of a previous event and call it memory. But time must exist as an inherent faculty of experience for this to be the case, and it isn't, because time IS the so-called memory thought as well. And that "memory" thought is only an ever fresh appearance. So there is only ever this timelessness. The past is a thought appearing now, and there is no thinker of that thought(it isn't even a thought either). Thoughts don't point or refer to anything. They just appear. We get in the habit of believing they refer to actual "things" out there in a world, but they don't. We also get in the habit of validating a thought with another thought. For example if a thought(a) appears and then a thought(b) appears which claims thought(a) is true. Thought(a) is already long gone. Thought(b) cannot reach out and touch thought(a). They never appear at the same time. When (b) is present (a) is not. Another thought may appear that says "bullsh*t!"... But that's thought(c). Whatever is appearing now is all that is.

To further negate the change of color; in our direct experience we never experience an unseen color. So a color's absence is never a part of experience. If a color cannot be experienced as absent, it cannot be experienced as present. A color cannot alternate between presence and absence. Having one side of a pair of opposites makes no sense. There are no one sided coins. So neither present or absent applies to color or any other appearance.

I must also sleep now. Hasta mañana. Taking my 3 yr old to the Oakland zoo mañana. Party animals.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Yes, Cone.  It may have been better to keep my mouth shut.  Your reply contains so many issues, enough for another thread, and we're already close to crashing the server with this one (woo hoo!).  Anyway, stumbling through another read of sunshine's piece and wanted to include this modern article on William Molyneux's Problem for interested readers, future ref, etc.,

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/04/formerly-blind-children-shed-lig.html?etoc " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
That's cool they revisited that! So what are the issues with what cone is saying? Because they fall in line with the entire theme of this thread and are accurate in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
catmoon said:
Then there is the interesting case of Virgil, and man blind since birth, who had an operation to remove severe cataracts. The results were not as expected:
Virgil told me later that in this first moment he had no idea what he was seeing. There was light, there was movement, there was color, all mixed up, all meaningless, a blur. Then out of the blur came a voice that said, "Well?" Then, and only then, he said, did he finally realize that this chaos of light and shadow was a face -- and, indeed, the face of his surgeon. […]
Virgil would stare at the cat as it walked around the room, not knowing what it was until it either meowed or jumped in his lap, when he would exclaim "ah! the cat!". The rest of the story of Virgil's journey to learn to see is in Oliver Sack's book, " An Anthropologist on Mars ".

This might be relevant to to the earlier discussion on vision and seeing.

krodha wrote:
Right! It took the auditory and tactile sensations being present for successful identification... I like that it's also about a cat... Very fitting coming from you


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
We, my friend... are concepts.

yadave said:
That's great.  Without a subject/object there's really not a damn thing to talk about and that seems incredibly funny for some reason so it must be way past bedtime.  Ciao.

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
Well then perhaps look at it this way;
It appears that thoughts arise but there is no thinker. Likewise it appears seeing is happening but there is no seer. And all the way down the line for all the senses. So whatever this is that we label as experience is spontaneously self-appearing. It appears to no one, so to say "we experience concepts" is true conventionally. But in truth the concept in it's appearance as letters or thought or verbal utterance doesn't point to anything. And in fact any-thing conceivable IS a concept. Apart from the conceptual overlay of experience we have the incredibly long breakdown I posted on the previous page having to do with the suchness and one-taste of experience in-and-of-itself. I tried to conceptually get as nonconceptual as I could by making that post experimental with actual experience. But getting back to the concepts, when you think or say "we",  the sound "we" just appears and is self-liberated in the very same moment. The error is that via the faculty of memory experience is extended into what appears to be time. And time gives the feeling that there is a subject which experiences an arising such as a concept which is conceived to be separate(from said subject). Time is an illusion. The subject is an illusion. Likewise the object is then negated as well. The concept in whatever form it appears IS experience itself. The notion that "we" experience anything is product of delusion. Experience just "is"... Seamless, timeless and whole in this ever-presence. Another short and potentially confusing way to put it is; the totality of all that is appearing in this very moment is what you are, and "you" are a concept. (And experience is empty.)

Reminds me of what Satan says in Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger which is actually incredibly on point. There's a creepy claymation adaptation of this scene in a old Tom Sawyer film you can find on YouTube. But anyways, Satan says:

"Life itself is only a vision, a dream. Nothing exists except empty space and you, and you... are but a thought"


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
krodha wrote:
Oh and MalaBeads I wrote infinitesimal in my initial response and meant 'infinite' (no way to correct other than this).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Aside from our conceptualizations about experience, experience itself communicates nothing.

yadave said:
Sunshine, your phenomenological inquiry is amazing, Much better than the Candrakirti Seven Points of Thinking piece we started with.  You could write a book.  I am going to practice it in more depth and first have a quick question.

Do we experience concepts?


Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
We, my friend... are concepts.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
How does internal/external not equate to subjective/objective?

MalaBeads said:
This is slightly off topic but speaks to your question asunthatneversets. Try this: hold your hand in front of your face and ask yourself this question: is your hand inside you or outside you?

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what you're proposing is the me with which to gauge an inner or outer with. And even if this alleged me was somehow located; how then could an idea exist inside or outside another idea? And how could they exist simultaneously? If they somehow were to manifest as distinct entities and exist simultaneously, then where could one establish a dividing line? Or where could a container be found one could utilize to place one within so the other remained outside? There are infinitesimal possibilities within the realm of the imagination, and I cannot successfully answer your question.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


Acchantika said:
Yes, but internal and external does not mean subjective and objective. I claimed you were making this equation. The external is still part of experience.

krodha wrote:
How does internal/external not equate to subjective/objective?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 25th, 2012 at 7:03 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I'm more concerned with direct experience of salt in it's form readily apparent to the senses.

yadave said:
OK.  Salt tastes salty.  I am ready.

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
As a quick disclaimer: Faculties that are named and used in making the descriptions and examinations i'm writing about are only temporary and will be discarded at a later point. Something said at one point may be contradicted and negated later on in reference to titles such as, mind, sense-fields, awareness, consciousness, subject, object etc....

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna

Ok so throughout this I want to stick with what is sensible. By "sensible" I mean capable of being sensed or that which is perceived by the senses. So audible, visible, tangible, etc... and for this we'll go with what is immediately perceived. Not mediately (through the intervention of something else). For example; when reading a book what you immediately perceive is letters on the page, but mediately or by means of these, notions of truth, virtue, vice etc are suggested to the mind. So though notions such as truth, vice, virtue etc are suggested and signified to the mind by sensible marks with which they have an arbitrary connection with, it would be absurd to designate these(truth, virtue etc..) as sensible things. So 'sensible things' means only what is immediately perceived by the senses and sensible things that we investigate don't include such designations inherently. To add; in instances such as a situation where one sees both red and blue in the sky, and thus it is inferred that there must be a cause for the differences in colors, that cause cannot be said to be a sensible quality immediately perceived by eyesight. Likewise, when one hears a variety of sounds it cannot be said that you hear their causes, and when one touches something hot or feels something heavy; one cannot say with truth that you feel the cause of the heat or weight. Hopefully we can agree that the senses perceive only what is perceived immediately because they do not make inferences.

So immediate sensible qualities include:
Sight -  light, colors, shapes.
Hearing - sounds.
The palate - tastes.
Smell - odors.
Touch - tangible qualities.
(And obviously combinations of these.)

The purpose for this is to obviously stay with the theme I mentioned in an earlier post which was based on the premise that experience suggests nothing about itself. Aside from our conceptualizations about experience, experience itself communicates nothing. So staying with what is immediately perceived allows us to remain objective (no pun intended) and allows a mutually shared middle ground (non-conceptual awareness) apart from our contrasting notions about that middle ground. So like I said we're empirically investigating the nature of experience itself, and the emptiness or non-emptiness of an objective field in relation to it's validity in being a substantiated attribute of experience.

The underlying inquiry consists of two contrasting notions which are; does the reality of sensible things consist of being perceived? Or do things in fact exist as inherent exterior objects independent of sensual perception, distinct from, and having no relation to being
perceived? And related notions of objectivity, subjectivity, physicality, etc. Inherent separate existence vs. Empty dependent origination.

You started with salt before so... beginning with salt; inquiring into salts characteristics and attributes we'll look into whether salt exists as an objective independent agent which inherently exists and posses these attributes or the contrary.

Salt as it's usually experienced is predominantly comprised of vision, tactile sensation and obviously taste. I suppose salt can, on occasion be heard and also undoubtably bears an aroma to match it's pungent taste but those senses are secondary. So I think approaching salt sense-by-sense will be appropriate so that we can ensure that each sensory field can be properly isolated and examined. The reason for this is that in my opinion the different sense fields are heterogeneous instead of how they are usually taken to be (homogeneous). So even though they seem to amalgamate and interact to create what appears to be an organized and coordinated experience of reality, they are in fact separate fields which only communicate with one another via inferential projection.

This issue was examined rather thoroughly in a philosophical thought-experiment called Molyneux's Problem which consisted of attempting to understand the level of sensorial coordination one would possess upon immediate recovery from blindness. Taken from wikipedia; The problem can be stated in brief, "if a man born blind can feel the differences between shapes such as spheres and cubes, could he similarly distinguish those objects by sight if given the ability to see?"

The question was originally posed to Locke by philosopher William Molyneux, whose wife was blind:

Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he felt one and the other, which is the cube, which is the sphere. Suppose then the cube and the sphere placed on a table, and the blind man made to see: query, Whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish and tell which is the globe, which the cube? To which the acute and judicious proposer answers: ‘Not. For though he has obtained the experience of how a globe, and how a cube, affects his touch; yet he has not yet attained the experience, that what affects his touch so or so, must affect his sight so or so…’

To which Locke responds in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding":

I agree with this thinking gentleman, whom I am proud to call my friend, in his answer to this problem; and am of opinion that the blind man, at first sight, would not be able with certainty to say which was the globe, which the cube, whilst he only saw them; though he could unerringly name them by his touch, and certainly distinguish them by the difference of their figures felt.

In 1709, in “A New Theory of Vision,” George Berkeley also concluded that there was no necessary connection between a tactile world and a sight world—that a connection between them could be established only on the basis of experience. He speculated:
the objects to which he had hitherto used to apply the terms up and down, high and low, were such as only affected or were in some way perceived by touch; but the proper objects of vision make a new set of ideas, perfectly distinct and different from the former, and which can in no sort make themselves perceived by touch (sect. 95).

There have been events matching this predicament which actually verified these philosopher's educated speculations; one of them being the case of "a woman who gained sight at the age of 12 when she underwent surgery for dense bilateral congenital cataracts. They report that the subject could recognize family members by sight six months after surgery, but took up to a year to recognize most household objects purely by sight."

So starting with vision; I included a reference image we can both use to avoid conflicting imagery.


(image A)

Salt on a table is a fairly common affair (if one is making a mess) and is good because it entails fairly limited differences in color, which as it ends up is pretty much equivalent to the very sense of vision we're exploring.

My argument to start is going to be that color is exactly vision and vision is exactly color, they are synonymous in nature and manifestation. The common presupposition that the process of visually perceiving an object consists of 'seeing' a 'color' (which exists separately from said act of seeing) is a misnomer. Wherever there is color there is seeing and vice versa. The two go hand-in-hand and you cannot have one without the other. With color we also get 'shape' which is a result of colors bordering each other in various ways. So color also implies shape, and shape likewise will imply color. Ultimately the object of vision is color and therefore shape.

Vision standing alone as an isolated sense is much like Image A posted above. If we attend to the visual evidence in the image alone we get a circular patch of white surrounded by brown. There is no separating line between the colors and vision. And likewise there is no separating line between the colors and you, no evidence in the colors of being "out there" and no evidence of yourself being an observer "in here". The conclusion that the colors are external to us is based on the principle that these colors change over time. So we accept a story that the colors (object) is separate from us even though the basis for this conclusion is lacking in the visual evidence in-and-of-itself. This aligns with my previous statement that experience suggests nothing about itself. Experience instead receives projected conceptual overlay which over time serves to create habitually solidified subconscious presuppositions conveying a compelling sense of separation.

Separation in general is based on spatiality. We usually conceive of two opposite aspects existing on opposite sides of unbridgeable spatial gaps. In truth we never experience spatial externality or independence. These designations are based on the formation of a subtle reference point of a subjective self "here" as opposed to "there". The feeling of subjectivity is never anything more than a tendency to identify with certain clusters of sensation and project that the remainder is objective and "other". But by looking at experience very directly it can actually be ascertained that this "otherness" is never a part of our experience.

So back to the white salt on the brown table... this image that arises as vision is composed of these colors, we see a white circular expanse of color, and various shades of white within that circular shape. Bordering that we see a brown expanse of color which seems to surround the white, and if we could back up and see a larger image the colors would unfold as we went along.
These colors are all there is to vision. So to examine the 'objectivity' of vision let's examine the 'whiteness' in the image(and you can do this by putting salt on a table in front of you)... speaking specifically about the shades of the 'whiteness' and the particular value of the color. Can we say that the shade itself is salt? Can it be said that wherever you have that particular shade(white) you have salt - and wherever you have salt you have that particular shade(white)? Obviously not. So white itself isn't definitive of salt. Now would you say that there is salt on the far side of that color? Do you directly experience salt behind the white? Because we just established that we wouldn't take the shade of white itself to be salt one should naturally inquire as to whether there is salt behind the white. We'll find that there is in fact no salt to be found on the posterior side of the white. Now on the near side of the color, do we experience any separation between the seeing of the color and the color itself? Attending exclusively to vision and letting go of any arising concepts or beliefs, is there any distance experienced between the seeing of the white and the white itself? You can't see the 'seeing'... so there can't be any distance, the color simply arises. So there's no salt on the far side of the white, and no salt on the near side, and no distance or gap between the white and the seeing of the white itself. Wherever white appears, vision is occurring, there's no access to white without vision, so the objectivity of the salt should melt or fuse into vision itself. The color should disappear into vision, because at that point it makes no sense to say one is "seeing" a "color" in the first place... the two are inseparable. Vision itself means color is arising, they're one and the same. It's not as if you have independent access to colors where you can notice a color out of the visual field and then say now i'm seeing that color, there couldn't be a color unless vision was already there.

Now the idea that there is a bordering line between an internal aspect of the body and an external aspect apart from the body has to be taken into account as well. This 'bordering line' creating the dichotomy of internal/external is based on identification with 'the body'. But the body itself is not separate from vision either, there are other colors and shades which are identified as 'my body' but just like the colors which composed the salt, these colors appearing as a 'body' do not communicate a possessive nature. The colors simply arise no different than any other color in the field of vision. We only impute a notion of 'my body' over these colors. There are other faculties that seem to correlate with vision to give the appearance of a homogeneous cluster of sensations conventionally called the body and we can discuss those separately, but all are merely qualities appearing to awareness as awareness itself. So the notion of an 'subject inside' viewing an 'object outside' is not self-evident in vision. Vision simply appears and is completely non-discriminitive. Another thing which isn't self-evident in vision is the presence of 'eyes' doing the seeing, we never experience or see our own eyes at any time, even in the act of looking at a mirror we only are ever seeing colors and shapes arise that we identify with as 'me' and 'my eyes' but the eyes appear nowhere within vision itself, we again only accept a story about this.

About this Nagarjuna states: "Through this the eyes, visible forms and so forth, which are described as the elements, these should be known also as [the twelve] sense-fields, and as the objects and the subjects as well. 

Neither atom of form exists nor is sense organ elsewhere; even more no sense organ as agent exists; so the producer and the produced are utterly unsuited for production." - Nagarjuna

"In terms of objects and subjects, whatever appears to the consciousness, apart from the cognitions themselves, no external objects exist anywhere.

So there are no external objects at all existing in the mode of entities. The very perceptions of the individual consciousnesses arise as appearances of the forms." - Nagarjuna

So vision is color. You can't even say they arise as mutually interdependent co-emergent qualities because the duality is lacking to begin with. The notion of the duality between observing and observed is a conceptual imputation. A story simply arises and say "i'm seeing white" and we accept this story, but the story is never evident in vision itself. The objectivity of color as an external quality isn't substantiated by experience. Now vision itself doesn't appear separate from awareness, or 'that' which 'knows' vision to be apparent. But that-which-knows is the appearance itself, there is no duality, even to say appearance implies something to which the appearance would appear-to, so what "is" escapes all such conceptualizations (aside from conventional descriptive concepts). So the objectivity of the salt collapses, the objectivity of color collapses, the objectivity of vision collapses as well. We can't say that vision is a 'thing' out there which is separate that we have access to sometimes and not at other times. Vision is awareness, there is no separation and there are no 'objects', all we have is awareness. And this same exercise is done for every sense modality. (Awareness itself must also be refuted as such.)

For the salty taste; my argument would be much like what has been proposed for vision, i saw that namdrol used the example of MSG in showing the appearance of 'saltiness' to not be unique to salt itself. So following the same examination done with vision and focusing on the palate alone one can successfully find taste to be empty as well. I would also add that with your argument being that saltiness is an innate quality with which salt itself is inherently endowed with; if one runs the gamut of taste congruent with other sensory appearances such as heat; it can be seen that an intense level of taste such as spiciness correlates with an intense heat in that at the highest volume of appearance both arise as pain. The pain that arises is in fact the taste. There are not two appearances such as taste and then also pain, they are one and the same. So to posit that an external objective thing like salt inherently contains it's taste would be akin to claiming it also contains the appearances of pain and pleasure. One also cannot attribute lesser volumes of the same spectrum such as a general mild taste to an object without naturally accrediting higher and lower volumes of that same spectrum. So salt cannot be said to contain it's taste. And taste cannot be said to be anything more than awareness itself and empty. This insight combined with the former which coincides with the experiment done in vision should hopefully annihilate this false designation(of inherent objective existence) apart from mere conventional usage.

Ultimately awareness itself is empty. Because for one to claim that this inquiry has successfully reached a foundation at 'awareness' implies a 'ground' of being of some type where none can be found. Yet conventionally awareness is a clear and proper concept to use in describing that-which-is, for such an awareness likewise cannot be denied.

The Buddha attempted to capture these realizations in The Heart Sutra when he stated:
There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no imagining. There is nothing seen, nor heard, nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined.

Devoid of all real entities; 
Utterly discarding all objects and subjects,
Such as aggregates, elements and sense-fields;
Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,
One's mind is primordially unborn;
It is in the nature of emptiness.
- Nagarjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Fanboys
Content:
krodha wrote:
Makes me want to buy a few copies of crystal and the way of light and leave one of each in a random obscure place to be discovered by someone someday... Plant a few seeds. I'd feel like a low grade Guru Rinpoche hiding termas. They'd have to be some asinine weather proof spots, the kinda place where if someone found it they'd know it was left for the sole purpose of being discovered.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Title: Re: Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche Fanboys
Content:
krodha wrote:
I met someone awhile ago (at the ling I go to) who said their original introduction to the teachings happened when they were visiting Hawaii and were hiking through the jungle in the middle of nowhere and came upon a old broken down rusty car. They opened up the car and looked through it and nothing was inside so they popped the trunk and opened it up and the only thing inside was the "crystal and the way of light".... Wild.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Unseen Beings in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
Paul said:
Is there such a thing as a poltergeist in Tibetan buddhism? I seem to remember mention of a type of being with "power over the movement of objects" in a sangcho text and it sounded very similar.

krodha wrote:
I was just reading something about this the other day in regards to the nature of a poltergeist being a manifestation of ones own repressed/suppressed aspects of themselves. Whether it be karmic debts like namdrol said, or just subconscious traits that have been buried coming to the surface it can probably be either. But it makes sense that those aspects of oneself would manifest in order to serve as a release. A kind of catharsis or purification that needs to occur as long as one remains ignorant of their actions which cause build up.

Also made me wonder if these same manifestations of repressed/suppressed aspects would hold true on a collective level. In the sense of the microcosm mirroring the macrocosm. Instances like the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear issues in Japan could be a manifestation of japaneses attitude towards the ocean with over fishing, whaling and horrid activities like you see in films like "the cove" where literally thousands of dolphins are trapped and killed, babies and all. The imprint on consciousness that these activities must cause must need an outlet. So the tsunami and surrounding events could be a poltergeist type phenomena on a major collective scale.

Im not saying this is the case, and i don't mean to offend anyone effected, or downplay the events in Japan by saying they were self inflicted... just some thoughts.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
It is partially untrue, hence the smiley, so it is partially (or largely) true.

krodha wrote:
So how is it partially true or untrue? In your opinion I mean.

yadave said:
You don't seem to notice that your view depends on the paradigm you happen to believe in.  You have faith.  You are "right."

krodha wrote:
What do I believe in? I've been referencing that view depends on ones reigning paradigm from the beginning of this thread. Other than initial faith to investigate no faith is required in what I'm suggesting. No ones right or wrong, but there is correct and incorrect view in terms of vidya and avidya. I do realize my view reflects the view I'm attempting to convey, I wouldn't be so bold to suggest I'm not subject to the same stipulations I'm bringing attention to in others cases. We are not different.

yadave said:
You don't seem to notice that your view depends on the paradigm you happen to believe in.  You have faith.  You are "right."

krodha wrote:
I do notice.

yadave said:
That's a neat concept, Sunshine.


krodha wrote:
Yes how ironic we have to use concepts to communicate. My point is that experience itself doesn't suggest such designations. Experience doesn't communicate anything. Only ideas of experience do. So my inquiry would be based on discovering if apart from our ideas we carry about experience, does experience actually resemble our conditioned views? And it's interesting that it in fact doesn't. Our conditioned views don't hold up to earnest investigation in an empirical sense. And experience turns out to have a degree of plasticity of sorts, in that it will reflect how it is viewed and can appear in many ways depending on the varying points of view the one apparent "point" holds.

yadave said:
Now you're talking metaphysics.  I was talking about the tree you can't walk through.

krodha wrote:
"Metaphysical" as in what is fundamental to physicality? Or "metaphysical" as in a sarcastic term to label notions which contrast ones accepted paradigm? If that's me talking metaphysics then this whole thread is metaphysic in nature. I haven't deviated from the emptiness of phenomena topic at all, what I'm saying just sounds absurd because its counterintuitive to ones point of view which has been subconsciously solidified through constant reification.

yadave said:
Horsesh*t is fine, Sunshine.  I made this a conventional topic some posts back so go for it.

Namdrol and I already analyzed the horsesh*t out of salt, so you may want to use this.  Namdrol said I'm not allowed to stop searching at the salt molecule, even though its parts are not salty.  I argued that his goal, some "eternal independent essence," was an archaic metaphysical strawman.


krodha wrote:
Constituent parts such as molecules aren't my concern, unless you're as small as a molecule, molecules aren't an obvious part of experience. I'm more concerned with direct experience of salt in it's form readily  apparent to the senses.

yadave said:
So our analysis will probably return to what cloudburst is expressing, we will probably argue about what "existence" means, and this will probably be due to there being at least four contexts going on here.  It is almost too much fun to fathom.  ;)

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
What existence means wouldn't be my concern either. Empirical investigation into what the nature of experience is, is all my analysis would encompass.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 22nd, 2012 at 5:09 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
Nonduality is a term made popular by new-age writers.

krodha wrote:
Simply untrue.

All that arises
is essentially no more real 
than a reflection,
transparently pure and clear,
beyond all definition
or logical explanation.
Yet the seeds of past action,
karma, continue to cause further arising
Even so-
know all that exists
is ultimately void of self-nature,
utterly non-dual!

- The Buddha

yadave said:
You talk the talk, Sunshine, but consider my dilemma.  All I have left is a little prajna.  Oh, and cooties.  That's it, prajna and cooties.

Magazines like Time and Newsweek periodically run an article on meditation subjects.  I recall one where a scientist told the story of waiting for a train one day when his perception of "outside" suddenly collapsed and he felt no separation between himself and the world he gazed upon.  The experience passed but he was blown away and it left him with an enormous curiosity about what had happened in his mind.  He did not burst out exclaiming "trains don't really exist!"

krodha wrote:
Of course he didn't, you think he'd be taken seriously by his piers? Credibility is king in institutionalized scientific circles. And even at that, just because he had a taste of an altered state of consciousness doesn't mean he had any background to understand the implications of such an experience. There's no doubt experiences like that are compelling enough to cause thorough investigation by anyone who has one. It all has to do with ones views and the paradigm they are raised to believe in. If that scientist had been living in India, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, Japan or any other south asian country 7 times out of 10 he would've most likely understood what that experience was.

His perception of "outside" collapsed because there is no inherent external reality. It certainly appears that way and it's useful that it does to navigate and function but in truth it is not so. I rarely use science to back up what i say but even modern science claims that all we experience is a representation in our brains and that there's no absolute way to ever know if there's an external world. And that's just modern science. That isn't even a correct view in my opinion.

yadave said:
I think we all have the capacity for these realizations, our interpretations may still differ, like they do for the texts we study.

krodha wrote:
Undoubtably, it's an innate part of being whatever it is that we are. People across all cultures, across all of time have had these "religious experiences" and they're interpreted in a myriad of ways according to the culture and time you read about them from. And some are sophisticated and accurate understandings with cultures which are based on such an experience, and some are unsophisticated translations of that experience like claiming to be the son of god.

yadave said:
At the end of the day, suffering is not caused by clinging to a tree, tree hugging is probably soothing, suffering is caused by clinging to a self and the Buddhist technology for dismantling that self is excellent, I have only thumbs up for emptiness of internal phenomena, my main concern here has been the projection of this onto emptiness of external phenoma, of language, and other ancillary things.

People, hummingbirds, and snails must all "go around the tree" to get to the other side.  Words and perceptions may differ, but the "tree" is real in this sense and no personal hubris of mine causes this to be so.

krodha wrote:
Internal/external phenomena is a projection of your so-called "internal" phenomena called conceptualization. Your main concern about this being "projected" as emptiness of external phenomena is impossible being that external phenomena is a projection itself. Aside from conventionality; people, hummingbirds, snails and tree lack inherent being. You're right it isn't due to any personal hubris of yours, but clinging to concepts and attachment to habitual patterns which reify that view certainly make it seem like there appears to be a person who does so. And in contrast makes it appear that there's a person who claims he or she doesn't do so due to any personal hubris of theirs.

I agree with namdrol that the apparent solidity of phenomena is directly related to the solidity of one's delusion. The more solid one's delusion is, the more solid apparent phenomena seem.

Pick out an object if you want yadave and let's break it down. I'd like for you to semi-grasp what i'm talking about so I'm not just throwing horsesh*t out on a message board without backing up my statements.

"Just as the Buddhas have spoken of 
"I" and "mine" for a practical purpose;
Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates", 
"Elements" and "sense-fields" for a practical reasons. 

Such things spoken of as the "great elements",
These are fully absorbed into consciousness;
Since they are dissolved by understanding them,
Are they not falsely imputed?"

- Nagarjuna: excerpt from his 60 Stanzas

-------------------------

"In the universal womb that is boundless space
all forms of matter and energy occur as a flux of the four elements,
but all are empty forms, absent in reality;
all phenomena, arising in pure mind, are like that.

Magical illusion, whatever it's shape,
lacks substance, empty in nature;
likewise, all experience of the world, arisen in the moment,
unstirring from pure mind, is insubstantial evanescence.

Just as a dream is a part of sleep,
unreal gossamer in it's arising,
so all and everything is pure mind,
never separated from it,
and without substance or attribute.

....Just as the objective field is absent in reality,
so 'the knower' - in actuality pure mind,
in essence and absence, is like the clear sky:
know it in it's ineffable reality!

....In total presence, the nature of mind that is like the sky, 
where there is no duality, no distinction, no gradation,
there is no view nor meditation nor commitment to observe,
no diligent ideal conduct, no pristine awareness to unveil,
no training in the stages and no path to tread,
no subtle level of realization, and no final union.

...... Constantly deconstructing, investigating keenly,
not even the slightest substance can be found; 
and in the undivided moment of nondual perception
we abide in the natural state of perfection.

Absent when scrutinized, absent when ignored,
not even an iota of solid matter is attested;
so all aspects of experience are always absent - 
know it as nothing but magical illusion!"

-Longchenpa: excerpts from The Treasury Of Natural Perfection

[/quote]
yadave said:
Now you are reifying and rationalizing and comparing yourself to others.  Right on.

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
Yes but it's understood that it's merely a product of conventional language implemented as a tool in the context of this conversation for the purpose of communication, and there's nothing wrong with that. I enjoy discussions like these.

I'm only saying I don't blame you for questioning the emptiness of external phenomena. So if you want to pick out an object and start there i'm down to discuss. Maybe starting with clouds would be good since there's minimal colors involved and a large area.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 21st, 2012 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
... He just uses different terms like "staying in the I AM" ...

Sönam said:
It does not sound very dzogchen ...

Sönam


Namdrol said:
Agreed. Not very dzogchen at all.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps not, I just mean the reference to remaining present. But you're right it isn't a dzogchen teaching but that's where I was saying take bits and pieces and see the correlations. Discard of the rest. Nevertheless I'm all for traditional dzogchen texts and teachings they hold their own undoubtably.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 6:42 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Astus said:
Indeed, it is his straightforward manner of teaching that grabbed me in the first place. It is difficult to find teachers who don't just repeat the common terminology all the time. Perhaps it is also an advantage that he can teach directly in his native tongue, thus breaking down those cultural and linguistic difficulties.

krodha wrote:
Agreed, I think any nondual teaching can be a great supplement to ones understanding and some teachers are definitely more clear than others. There might be an aspect of Buddhist teachings whether dzogchen, mahamudra etc that could seem unclear that can all of a sudden click by hearing someone put it a different way. Using the teachings as a tool and being able to implement various tools for the job is key, in my eyes.

Other good teachers who helped me are
Tony Parsons
Jeff Foster
Adyashanti
Greg Goode
Scott Kiloby
Rupert Spira
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Ramana Maharshi
Ramesh Balsekar
Atmananda Krishna Menon

I took bits and pieces of everything they say and found the correlations within buddhism and dzogchen and the traditional texts and teachings and then came at it from the position of Buddhism and dzogchen in the sense of what does it say about what these other teachers are saying.. How does it critique their views.. Do they mesh... What works.. What doesn't work. And it's helped my view and experience tremendously.

It's wild, even so called "advaita" teachers like nisargadatta for example; his advice for practice is the exact same as the dzogchen method of being present at all times. He just uses different terms like "staying in the I AM" and he says forget Brahman and all that, it's useless.

It's interesting stuff.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
So my point here is not new, just another way of expressing my concern over the scope of these ideas in today's language framework because, at the end of the day, we appear to end up with odd statements like,

9a. Nothing ultimately exists.
9b. Everything conventionally exists.

and one questions the value of such an empty concept, "ultimate existence," in the first place.  Seems that one could leave "existence" alone, conventional, and simply say "things have no essence" which, from what I gather, is an early way of saying "God does not really exist" or "souls don't really exist."  But in my daily experience, the term "exists" is not usually associated with "eternal and independent," these latter terms come up in theistic conversations.  I had one crafty pastor friend who got around the essence problem by saying "God changes."

(I suppose one could make a case for physical laws like gravity being "eternal and independent" but will leave this for another day.
Dave.

krodha wrote:
It's not an early way of saying things have no essence as in a "god" or "soul" doesn't exist. It's not an "early" way of saying anything of the sort. It's a way of showing the absence of duality. That you think you're a physical body, in a physical world with objects outside of you which are alien to you, but this is simply a misconception derived from our false conditioned perception. The outcome truly is that "you" as a subjective entity are removed completely. And the feeling that there are "things" outside you is removed completely. Whatever it is you would call "experience" is all that's left. But a singular, zero-dimensional experiencing in-and-of-itself. This isn't some philosophy which is left on the level of a humored intellectual contemplation. You seem to want to rationalize it to be that way. I can't say that I blame you being that you have no reference point to gauge it in it's ultimate sense. But it surely isn't a mere "early" way of pronouncing some philosophical notion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 20th, 2012 at 3:31 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Paul said:
Here is a talk (in two parts) by James Low:

https://soundcloud.com/simplybeing " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The transcript is here: http://www.simplybeing.co.uk/articles.php?p=Easy_Does_It_The_heart_of_the_dzogchen_teachings " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like it - he really is very good at explaining the Dzogchen view in a straightforward way.

krodha wrote:
It's really really basic though, and he still gives credence to dualities of self and other even though he's trying to show the emptiness of the subjective-self, he basically tries to convey that our own views of ourselves is based on external situations and interactions. He even said were pretty much energy going out and energy coming in, which is a wrong view and suggests coming and going and in and out and all sorts of dualities. If dzogchen is being applied correctly there are absolutely no dualities at all. I only read the transcript though so perhaps this isn't his best talk for all I know. It's akin to the tip of the iceberg in dzogchen though I'd say.

He spends an awful lot of time discussing the self to really be attempting to successfully convey the emptiness of the self. But it is important to do self-work(purification) in the beginning for some, I know I had to, in order to dispel some habitual tendencies. So to each their own.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 19th, 2012 at 9:10 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
The Madhyamaka method of discourse certainly throws a wrench in any sort of conceptual elaboration!

What my brain is wondering here is this concept of Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Existence itself.  It is like it contains nothing by definition.  And it leads back to my initial post where I asked what "nature of" means and I think,

8. To ask "what is the nature of X?" is to ask "what is the ultimate nature of X?" and this implies one must first discover if X is ultimately existent and then answer "what is that ultimately existent essence of X like?" which has the normal meaning one expects when asking "what does an orange taste like?"

krodha wrote:
In the self-liberation of awareness, causes and conditions have totally vanished. In the instant liberation of awareness, appearances are primordially pure. Such purity does not occur after some time, nor does it come from anywhere else than the very nature of awareness. Awareness is liberated from all extremes of nihilism, eternalism, and so on. The "four alternatives" are to be existent, nonexistent, both existent and nonexistent, and neither existent nor nonexistent. Awareness is liberated from being any of these four alternatives. Since it is of the single nature of the entirety of samsara and nirvana, awareness is "empty of multiplicity". 

Thus, since all appearances and sounds remain in the four types of liberation, they are not bound by anything, and they are not liberated by anything. Everything self-arises from it's own state and is self-liberated. Whatever appears is free from the three extremes of birth, cessation and abiding, so reality-itself is self-appearing. Therefore, due to the spiritual mentor's simply pointing this out, once you know reality-itself to be self-appearing, you will realize appearances and consciousness as reality-itself. 

In the four types of liberation, nothing is bound by anything, but in the cycle of existence, we are bound by self-grasping: grasping on to a personal self and grasping onto phenomena. However, in terms of their own nature with reference to these four types of liberation, all appearances and sound are not bound by anything, nor are they liberated by anything; so no antidotes are necessary.

The ultimately existent essence of X is like; expansive, boundless, centerless, borderless, beginningless, endless, clear, complete, nonexclusive, dynamic, inconceivable, spacious, unchanging, pure, pristine, unmoved, immaculate, spontaneous, immutable, unsurpassable, intrinsic, innate, supreme, open, free.

Advice From Me To Myself by Patrul Rinpoche 
Vajrasattva, sole deity, Master,  You sit on a full-moon lotus-cushion of  white light In the hundred-petalled full bloom of youth.
Think of me, Vajrasattva, You who remain unmoved within the manifest display  That is Mahamudra, pure bliss-emptiness.
 Listen up, old bad-karma Patrul, You dweller-in-distraction.
For ages now you've been Beguiled, entranced, and fooled by appearances. Are you aware of that? Are you?  Right this very instant, when you're  Under the spell of mistaken perception You've got to watch out. Don't let yourself get carried away by this fake and empty life.
Your mind is spinning around About carrying out a lot of useless projects: It's a waste! Give it up! Thinking about the hundred plans you want to accomplish, With never enough time to finish them,  Just weighs down your mind. You're completely distracted By all these projects, which never come to an end, But keep spreading out more, like ripples in water. Don't be a fool: for once, just sit tight.
Listening to the teachings — you've already heard hundreds of teachings, But when you haven't grasped the meaning of even one teaching, What's the point of more listening?
Reflecting on the teachings — even though you've listened, If the teachings aren't coming to mind when needed, What's the point of more reflection? None.
Meditating according to the teachings — If your meditation practice still isn't curing The obscuring states of mind—forget about it!
You've added up just how many mantras you've done —  But you aren't accomplishing the kyerim visualization. You may get the forms of deities nice and clear — But you're not putting an end to subject and object. You may tame what appear to be evil spirits and ghosts, But you're not training the stream of your own mind.
Your four fine sessions of sadhana practice, So meticulously arranged — Forget about them.
When you're in a good mood, Your practice seems to have lots of clarity — But you just can't relax into it. When you're depressed,  Your practice is stable enough  But there's no brilliance to it.  As for awareness, You try to force yourself into a rigpa-like state, As if stabbing a stake into a target!
When those yogic positions and gazes keep your mind stable  Only by keeping mind tethered —  Forget about them!
Giving high-sounding lectures Doesn't do your mind-stream any good. The path of analytical reasoning is precise and acute —  But it's just more delusion, good for nothing goat-shit.  The oral instructions are very profound  But not if you don't put them into practice.
Reading over and over those dharma texts  That just occupy your mind and make your eyes sore —  Forget about it!
You beat your little damaru drum — ting, ting — And your audience thinks it's charming to hear.  You're reciting words about offering up your body,  But you still haven't stopped holding it dear.  You're making your little cymbals go cling, cling — Without keeping the ultimate purpose in mind.
All this dharma-practice equipment  That seems so attractive —  Forget about it!
Right now, those students are all studying so very hard, But in the end, they can't keep it up.
Today, they seem to get the idea, But later on, there's not a trace left.  Even if one of them manages to learn a little, He rarely applies his "learning" to his own conduct.
Those elegant dharma disciplines — Forget about them!
This year, he really cares about you, Next year, it's not like that. At first, he seems modest, Then he grows exalted and pompous. The more you nurture and cherish him, The more distant he grows.
These dear friends  Who show such smiling faces to begin with —  Forget about them!
Her smile seems so full of joy —  But who knows if that's really the case? One time, it's pure pleasure, Then it's nine months of mental pain.  It might be fine for a month,  But sooner or later, there's trouble.
People teasing; your mind embroiled — Your lady-friend — Forget about her!
These endless rounds of conversation Are just attachment and aversion —  It's just more goat-shit, good for nothing at all. At the time it seems marvelously entertaining, But really, you're just spreading around stories about other people's mistakes. Your audience seems to be listening politely,  But then they grow embarrassed for you.
Useless talk that just make you thirsty — Forget about it!
Giving teachings on meditation texts without yourself having gained actual experience through practice, Is like reciting a dance-manual out loud  And thinking that's the same as actually dancing.
People may be listening to you with devotion, But it just isn't the real thing.
Sooner or later, when your own actions Contradict the teachings, you'll feel ashamed.
Just mouthing the words, Giving dharma explanations that sound so eloquent — Forget about it!
When you don't have a text, you long for it; Then when you've finally gotten it,  you hardly look at it.
The number of pages seems few enough, But it's a bit hard to find time to copy them all. Even if you copied down all the dharma texts on earth, You wouldn't be satisfied.
Copying down texts is a waste of time (Unless you get paid) —  So forget about it!
Today, they're happy as clams —  Tomorrow, they're furious.  With all their black moods and white moods,  People are never satisfied.  Or even if they're nice enough,  They may not come through when you really need them, Disappointing you even more.
All this politeness, keeping up a  Courteous demeanor —  Forget about it!
Worldly and religious work Is the province of gentlemen. Patrul, old boy — that's not for you.
Haven't you noticed what always happens?  An old bull, once you've gone to the trouble of      borrowing him for his services, Seems to have absolutely no desire left in him at all—  (Except to go back to sleep).
Be like that — desireless.
Just sleep, eat, piss, shit.  There's nothing else in life that has to be done.
Don't get involved with other things: They're not the point.
Keep a low profile,  Sleep.
In the triple universe When you're lower than your company You should take the low seat.
Should you happen to be the superior one, Don't get arrogant.
There's no absolute need to have close friends; You're better off just keeping to yourself.
When you're without any worldly or religious obligations, Don't keep on longing to acquire some!
If you let go of everything — Everything, everything —  That's the real point!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 17th, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
Or maybe just say "physical?"  Then we get things like "no physical 'mind' can be found" (aside from its physical reflection as it flows through the body).   Six or one half dozen...

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
Physicality is a misnomer in the ultimate sense as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


padma norbu said:
Also, my other problem with the whole concept of "there is no more power an offering than offering to the Guru" is very simple: just what that means exactly is just a jumbled up mess in my brain.


Namdrol said:
There are four gurus: the guru who gives you introduction is the outer guru; the path practiced is the inner guru; the result realized is the secret guru; rigpa is the ultimate guru;

But without the first, the rest will not happen.

N

krodha wrote:
Is there also such thing as a vajra guru? Who takes it upon themselves to have sole responsibility of their student's realization? I heard this somewhere.

Besides Padmasambhava of course, I just mean the term used in that other way as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Paul said:
One thing worth remembering is that although Buddhism doesn't classify plants as sentient beings, there are spirits that live in plants, like some form of wood nymph.

The whole plant ESP (if real) does not definitively prove that a plant per-se is a sentient being. Just something I thought I'd throw out there...

krodha wrote:
Well luckily for us, as Namdrol put it earlier in this thread; "Sentient beings occur through non-recognition of the basis"... so classifying what is or isn't a sentient being is at base a byproduct of abiding in the relative condition as it is. On one hand; conjecture, and on the other; delusion... a futile endeavor beyond the fun of contemplating the possibilities... but fun nevertheless.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
PadmaVonSamba said:
But if having a brain were all that was needed to be perfectly free from suffering, then why wouldn't beings be perfectly free from suffering? Why seek food and warmth?
.

padma norbu said:
Also, something I just remembered regarding Namdrol's point of neurons firing (sentient beings) vs. hormones (plants) is that all forms of Buddhism I am aware of consider various spirit beings as sentient beings. Pretas (ghosts) and demons, etc. have less of a body than plants (from the human perspective of being able to examine and compare, anyway). I suppose in deciding about the sentience of beings, we must defer to whatever the Buddhas have said.

I have moved on from Ted Talks about plants and am now watching the fascinating true story of the possessed boy that the Exorcist was based on and considering how it is that a demon might interact with a physical human organism... I don't believe such a spirit creature would have any neural network that we could identify...
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgoNlOn-hk " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUVm8iK8nT4 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj1j0Us1CUc " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ-0lPNIBC4 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and I am also considering the motivation of the possessor. As has been said numerous times in Buddhist lectures, even those behaving badly are doing so because they believe they will be getting something out of it. I wonder if demons are frustrated beings who know how crazy the universe really is.

krodha wrote:
I just saw this on tv the other day... It's a show about a team consisting of a woman(who supposedly can pick up on subtle residual energies and see ghosts and other entities) and a retired Police detective who do paranormal investigations.

But in this show there's an entity living in the basement of this building which she said would equate to a "demon" pretty much, and it seems to have influenced a murder in the past. She goes into the basement and this thing interacts with her and she describes it... she says these entities are extremely ancient and some are very powerful but they're extremely rare, they can take on any form and influence people to do things and they feed off negativity.

She also picks up on the residual energy left by the killer in the upstairs section of the building, and the killer is actually still alive in prison a few miles away. She says it's rare to pick up on energy imprints from the living but if an extremely emotional and powerful event took place in a certain area it leaves an energetic imprint. They interview the killer as well and he said that the killing was provoked but overall unplanned and spontaneous which made the woman hypothesize that he may have been under the influence of this entity.

At 7:30 she starts to talk about the demonic entity in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiRnxW-8qb4

Who knows if it's true... seems to be backed up with compelling evidence... your post made me think of it though in regards to a demonic type entity influencing people.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 16th, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
padma norbu said:
:: kills self ::

Seriously, though, great last few pages. I particularly like the breakdown of the brain constituents and molecular comparison to a rock. I've had a sense of vague unease at times when others talk about sentient beings and vegetarianism and the idea is always raised that plants are not sentient beings. I always think of the famous experiments which show some sort of reaction from plants in response to negative or positive actions in their presence (not even necessarily to the plant itself). The plants don't have a brain, but the mind isn't found in the brain. In relation to what I've learned and pondered these past couple days about energy, there is something interesting yet unknowable here...

krodha wrote:
That documentary is called "The Secret Life Of Plants" by the way... it's on youtube... it all started with a polygraph specialist who decided to experiment with a plant which was sitting at his desk by hooking it up to a polygraph machine to see what would happen.... and nothing happened... until he looked at the plant and thought "I'm going to light you on fire" and the polygraph machine went crazy... so he did a bunch of other experiments to follow up.

Another one he had a plant next to a contraption where there was brine shrimp in a cup of normal water right above a container of boiling water and he had a timer on the cup of brine shrimp so that it would dump them out into the boiling water. He hooked the plant up to the polygraph machine and left the building and drove a few miles away, he wanted to make sure he wasn't influencing the machine somehow. And sure enough when the cup poured out and all the brine shrimp died the polygraph machine went off again. Plant was upset!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 15th, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen cosmogeny
Content:
Blue Garuda said:
Fascinating thread with a lot of words I don't fully understand, but the word 'origin', like 'primordial' which sometimes pops up (in terms of wisdom) could leave one with the impression that there is a defined 'beginning' to be found.

I've not seen any evidence yet of this 'beginning' so I'll stick with the continuum I observe all around me - and yes, that 'circular' concept makes more sense to me in terms of this thread.   Phenomena do not have to arise from an ultimate origin, only from that which immediately precedes them.

That's my 'twopennorth'  (two pennies' worth) from times when money was not formless or in the bardo.

krodha wrote:
'Beginning' isn't the best word because it implies a starting point leading to something other than the beginning (like a middle or end point) and implies time... 'primordial' is better viewed as a fundamental timelessness... always-beginning.... ever-present... unborn.... though the basis is a point of origin (like a source) the notion of time doesn't apply, time only arises from non-recognition. Likewise viewing it as a 'source' only applies to apparent phenomena arising from non-recognition as well, in the true nature of the basis it is only in-and-of-itself prior-to and inclusive of any distinction.

This is how I've viewed it, however if this is incorrect Namdrol please strike me down (I use informative threads like these to hone and refine my view as well so abandoning wrong views is imperative!)


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
And as for the rock; If you insist that's the way it is then only you can allow that view to subside... all I'd ask is you remain open to the possibility. And perhaps do some investigation as to whether the mind is in the body, or the "body" in the mind. Or if either exist at all apart from conventionality, including the rock. I'm not out to convince you of anything. And wouldn't want you to believe me either. Just rest in your uncontrived naturalness and allow your conditioned views and habitual tendencies to exhaust themselves.

Pero said:
Frankly I don't know what to say anymore. If you think a rock has a mind, well then there really isn't anything more to discuss.

krodha wrote:
Frankly that would be a ludicrous thing to think, which is why I said nothing of the sort.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 14th, 2012 at 3:15 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.

asunthatneversets said:
Its more akin to an analogy of the ocean and it's waves. For the sake of the discussion say the waves could bare sentience. Each wave would only see itself as a wave and remain ignorant of the ocean it's inseparable from. At some point a wave would realize it's part of the entire ocean and was never separate to begin with. But the other waves still under the impression of their sole existence would say "cool man but that's just your realization it doesn't belong to me" it's fundamentally a failure to let go of conditioned views which have become so engrained they seem 100% rational in contrast to this other perspective which is also true... In fact "more true" but is seen as utterly counterintuitive.

Pero said:
Sounds like Brahman to me.

There seems to be someone else proposing a different point of view. But it's only due to attachment to a current perception that an 'alternate perception' is projected. The rock is not just a rock. If it was... The body would be just as 'lifeless'.
The body is not lifeless precisely because since it has a mind. The rock does not.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't take the analogy too literally(in a metaphorical sense) or strictly.

And as for the rock; If you insist that's the way it is then only you can allow that view to subside... all I'd ask is you remain open to the possibility. And perhaps do some investigation as to whether the mind is in the body, or the "body" in the mind. Or if either exist at all apart from conventionality, including the rock. I'm not out to convince you of anything. And wouldn't want you to believe me either. Just rest in your uncontrived naturalness and allow your conditioned views and habitual tendencies to exhaust themselves.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 2:01 AM
Title: Re: Suffering is happiness ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
That was a profound thing to realize for me too


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 13th, 2012 at 1:41 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.

Kai said:
Ooooohhhh, you will be surprised. I had been hearing from Zen people that trees, grass and stones can get enlightened. Whether this POV is purely a Zen koan or they actually believe in it, is still a mystery........at least to me.

Kilaya said:
I had been around Zen people for a long time, and the only similar teaching I heard was: "Everything is already enlightened, including trees, etc." This is a symbolic way to say that everything is good as it is, the root of confusion lies in our mind. But when it comes to "attaining" enlightenment, it requires a mind, which pebbles and trees lack of.

krodha wrote:
Also one of the nyams of their practice or realization is that everything around them comes alive... Chairs, rocks, the ground, the sky etc.. Everything feels like ones own body feels right now.. Which is naturally because everything is a manifestation of ones own nature and that is a direct experiencing of that. But not everyone has that nyam.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



kalden yungdrung said:
.


But i was forgotten to mention that Dharmakaya aspect is mostly used in Dzogchen not as that emptiness aspect (above mentioned) ans also as is known in Sutra and Tantra. I suppose that Dharmakaya is even not known in Sutra.

Different Paths maybe?

Mutsog Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
How is it mostly used in dzogchen aside from the emptiness aspect?

And it does seem that it was mentioned in sutra... Although I can't say whether or not it's really used in the same context... Got this from wikipedia:

In the Pali Canon The Buddha tells Vasettha that the Tathagata (the Buddha) is Dhamma-kaya, the "Truth-body" or the "Embodiment of Truth", as well as Dharmabhuta, "Truth-become", that is, "One who has become Truth" (Digha Nikaya). On another occasion, the Buddha told Vakkali: "He who sees the Dhamma (Truth) sees the Tathagata, he who sees the Tathagata sees the Dhamma (Samyutta Nikaya). That is to say, the Buddha is equal to Truth, and all Buddhas are one and the same, being no different from one another in the Dharma-kaya, because Truth is one."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 7:13 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.
As we have pointed out elsewhere, it is true that the Dharmakaya, the dimension of reality, is universal, like infinite space itself. It is one in the sense of transcending all dualities. It is omnipresent and all-pervading and all sentient beings, the enlightened and the unenlightened, equally participate in this single Dharmakaya. But Dharmakaya refers not to mind (sems), but to the Nature of Mind (sems-nyid) and this is a crucial distinction in Dzogchen. Furthermore, the Dharmakaya, which is understood in Dzogchen as the state of Shunyata and the basis of everything (kun-gzhi), is not a mind, let alone the One Mind or the Universal Mind, even though it is the context for the activities of thought. For this reason, the Dharmakaya is compared to the clear open sky, whereas thoughts are compared to the clouds that come to fill the sky. Moreover, there is also the Rupakaya or Form Body, the dimension of form, which is equally the manifestation of Buddhahood and this Rupakaya is always individual in its nature. Therefore, the enlightenment of a Buddha has both a universal aspect, the Dharmakaya, and a particular and individual aspect, the Rupakaya.

~ John Myrdhin Reynolds, bold added

krodha wrote:
Nice description, vajranatha is a beast!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
For you, if you got realized, such imputations would fall away. But not for the rest of back home in samsara. Your realization is your own and not anybody elses.

krodha wrote:
Its more akin to an analogy of the ocean and it's waves. For the sake of the discussion say the waves could bare sentience. Each wave would only see itself as a wave and remain ignorant of the ocean it's inseparable from. At some point a wave would realize it's part of the entire ocean and was never separate to begin with. But the other waves still under the impression of their sole existence would say "cool man but that's just your realization it doesn't belong to me" it's fundamentally a failure to let go of conditioned views which have become so engrained they seem 100% rational in contrast to this other perspective which is also true... In fact "more true" but is seen as utterly counterintuitive.

Pero said:
This is from your point of view. But the rock itself is just a rock, a thing without a mind, it cannot get enlightened since it does not have the darkness of ignorance in the first place.

krodha wrote:
There seems to be someone else proposing a different point of view. But it's only due to attachment to a current perception that an 'alternate perception' is projected. The rock is not just a rock. If it was... The body would be just as 'lifeless'. The act of perceiving and that which is perceived are not two separate things. And the perceiver is only the ability for 'that' which is the union of 'perceiving-perceived' to be. There is no perceiver. Observer-observing-observed are one which isn't even a 'one' because it is empty cognizance ever-present in the immediacy of that which is called 'now'. Unborn and timeless nondual perfection.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
For you things may be inseparable or whatever but that does not mean that everything you see possesses dharmakaya. The conclusion of this idea could be that a rock could get enlightened too for example.

krodha wrote:
I see what you're saying... But if one abides in their true nature then there would be no "seeing" in the ultimate sense, it would be more of a zero-dimensional empty cognizance appearing as a "rock". The notion that there is a 'rock' is again due to dualistic imputation (conceptual overlay)... So dharmakaya is it's fullness would be a continuum of nonduality which would be inherently void of a self perceiving a rock. It would be like mind experiencing itself.. But the mind isn't a substantial "entity" it's just empty-cognizance. Really hard to convey using conventional language.

But I see what you mean that what I'm describing sounds like if one "thing" is enlightened then 'everything' would be... But the enlightenment is really the falling away of anything which could be said to have attained such a realization and also the negation of 'that-which-hasn't'. All that remains is the fully perfected natural state in it's spontaneous fullness. The imputation of one who would be realized and one who isn't would fall away. So in a sense a rock would be enlightened but it's more along the lines that there's a clear apperceivement that there never was a substantiated 'rock' or self which separately knows the rock to begin with.

But again I'm not saying my interpretation is the truth and albeit my attempt to describe what I'm trying to say may come out wrong, so I'm fully open to critique or discussion.

It's just a matter of coming from an impure dualistic perspective or pure nondual percption... Conventional and inherent realities... Because your nature is capable of projecting both.. It's a multi-dimensional 'suchness' depending on ones knowledge... So you're correct in one sense and what I'm saying seems to be correct in another. But I'm open to being incorrect even though my view seems to fit (in my eyes).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 12th, 2012 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Pero said:
Because it is only present in those that have a mind - sentient beings.

krodha wrote:
But then again isn't the perspective that there is a body endowed with a mind just a projection of delusion? Because supposed phenomenal "objects" apart from said "subject" would really just be a play of ones own nature, mistakenly taken to be separate "sentientless" material due to imputation derived from avidya? This is what tulku urgyen was saying in those quotes I posted earlier in this thread; that the supreme 'seeing' is not seeing 'things'. But apperceiving that 'what-is-experienced' is inseparable from the selfless perceiving we mistaken as the "I". And that the "mind" which perceives is only "emptiness" which means "empty cognizance" (according to tulku urgyen) and "clarity" which is the luminous quality of mind.

So it is a empty cognizance which can reveal phenomena to be "pure" and "impure". Again according to tulku urgyen: "impure phenomena is what is experienced in this world. Pure phenomena is when there is no duslistic grasping.  It is becoming accustomed to the inseparable, unobstructed, undeluded dharmakaya, in which phenomena appearing have no self-nature." And this goes for phenomena usually mistaken to be "subjective" such as mind, feelings, thoughts and "owned" phenomena such as a body. In pure vision there is no internal-external dichotomy. So perceiving the existence of "sentient beings" apart from "non-sentient phenomena" is a product of impure vision. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but this is how I've understood it to be.. And it makes sense this way in practice experientially as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
krodha wrote:
I agree with sonam... The manifestation of qualities which appear to be individual in nature are in truth merely an expression and play of 'that'. Only filtered and translated through a veil of delusion born of attachment and aversion. There appears to be distinction, and suffering proliferates from this pseudo-separation. In truth 'what-is' is unborn and timeless.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Namdrol said:
The basis is free from one and many, therefore it is niether individual nor shared.

gad rgyangs said:
are you an individual? yes
does that mean you and the basis are therefore distinct?

krodha wrote:
You seem so certain of individuality! Your inquiry is in fact predicated on this certainty which you boldly reinforced by affirming your own initial question. But is individuality inherently so?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
Sherab said:
Wow, the exchanges are UNREAL.

krodha wrote:
FOREAL.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



brendan said:
I know, but its cheating.

RIP=Theism

Dharmakaya is only correct on paper.

How is Incest, rape, cluster bombs, abnormal cell growth,  etc etc untrue.

Come one its so silly, so there for there is no RIP.

krodha wrote:
What's wrong with saying RIP to someone to show respect? How is it anything close to "cheating"?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:



brendan said:
Why then did you write "RIP Steve Jobs" on your facebook page when Steve Jobs died?


Namdrol said:
The answer is: I wrote that out of sentimentality because I am fond of his products.

krodha wrote:
And he was a dharma practitioner/proponent! I heard he used to give the zen stare to people during pivotal business interactions and would psych them out. Boss.

I was gonna throw a rip Steve jobs on my Facebook too but then I remembered the dharmakaya wasn't real and saved myself from engaging in such lowly actions...


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 11th, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: The individual in dzogchen, independence, dharmakaya
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Mind is empty in essence and cognizant by nature....... the knower needs to recognize his own mind. We then see that there isn't even a hair-tip of something to see. It is as the Heart Sutra said: "No form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness, no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind" That absence of any concrete substance whatsoever is called dharmakaya. Is there anything more precious in this entire world than dharmakaya? 
In the moment of seeing that, there is no 'thing' to see. In this moment that fact or experience is an obvious actuality. The cognizant quality that sees that there is no thing to see is called the sambhogakaya aspect of the awakened state. The mind's absence of any concrete thing, and it's ability to know that it is no thing, are indivisible, like water and wetness, fire and heat, sugar and sweetness. That indivisible unity of these two aspects - being empty and cognizant - is called nirmanakaya. At the moment of recognizing you see that these three are inseparable, and this is the svabhavikaya, the essence-body. This is what i mentioned before: seeing no 'thing' is the supreme sight. In this world, is there anything more profound than being face to face with the three kayas? Recognizing this fact is the essential point of all practice." 

"....space doesn't see itself. Mind, on the other hand is cognizant as well as empty. The empty quality is dharmakaya, the cognizant quality is sambhogakaya and their unity is nirmanakaya."

"The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and dharmadhatu wisdom is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person's mind. If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body. In the same way, the main field or realm called dharmadhatu has the nature of dharmakaya. Dharmakaya has the quality of dharmadhatu wisdom, which is like the mind aspect."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Title: Re: Yeah, Dzogchen is confusing
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Sorry, Lhugpa, forgot about your post. Nevertheless, the idea that buddhas can "choose to get amnesia and walk the path again to gain even more knowledge the second time around" is hogwash. Buddhism does not teach this. Buddhism teaches that complete Buddhahood means the eradication of all knowledge and emotional obscurations. Dzogchen further specifies that truly complete buddhahood also means realizing all appearances to be the radiance of one's own state. Thus, nothing more to learn, no talents or skills to further perfect beyond that.

Anyhow, my point still stands - if we want to help PN, we should start by addressing his stated concerns. Telling him to just practice more when one of his main concerns is that the ultimate result of such practice is impermanent doesn't make much sense. We have to explain how and why complete realization of Dzogchen is in fact permanent, unobstructed, uninterrupted.

PN of course had some other concerns, too, but this seemed like the most crucial one.

krodha wrote:
I noticed this reoccurring concern too, and i agree with what you're saying here, although I can't say whether or not there would be more to learn or not. I remember someone asking Lama Lena a question along the same lines the last time she was here, and she said that the depths and dimensions of this really goes as far as one wishes to take it. I take Lama Wangdor to be the "real deal" so her word seems something to trust.

As for this "entity" which is said to transmigrate, if buddhahood is the full and total removal of the misconception of "I", and upon the dissolution of this ignorance ones true nature exists unobscured shining timelessly in it's fullness, then "that" which buddhahood reveals was never born and thus cannot die.

The feeling of being a separate individual is the product of habitual conventionalities being engrained into ones view to such a perverse level, that the conventionally influenced tendencies then become subconscious conditioning which fully dominates one's perception. So what is mere conventionality is then paraded as inherency and this delusion completely envelops one's perceptions to the point that the unreal becomes a common sensical point of reference which makes apperceiving one's true nature a seemingly impossible task. I think what you're feeling is completely normal PN. But I would agree with Pema Rigdzin in his statement that complete realization of Dzogchen is in fact permanent, unobstructed, uninterrupted.

PN I was in your same position maybe a year and a half ago. I'd come to the conclusion that whatever it was i was seeking wasn't going to be found in dzogchen the way it had been presented to me and implemented in the group practices i'd been attending. I lost faith in it because all i knew of it was ideas which had to be adopted and "believed in".... and for all I knew could be an "opiate to the masses" like you worded. I felt that believing in all this "stuff" that went along with the teaching was no better than believing in any other system of belief. And i didn't want belief, i still feel that belief is slavery... so i gave up on dzogchen, i mean i still thought it was a grand teaching and respected it... I still kept a giant thangka of Ekajati hanging on my wall and i remained open to it but I went a different route for awhile. I dibbled and dabbled in other nondual teachings and philosophies and pursued grokking these other teachings for a bit... until one day i had a really intense experience which pretty much knocked me on my ass... and I had a "f*ck this is what dzogchen was talking about" moment, and i saw first hand what it had been pointing to... and saw that it pointed to pretty much close to the same thing the other nondual teachings were pointing to but just in a different way... and i discovered other dzogchen teachings which were much more clear than those i'd been reading and learning about before... and i learned to appreciate the practices i'd abandoned before and formed a new found love for the teachings.

But it took me deviating from it to rediscover it's amazing qualities in a different light... and that deviation proved to deliver a much deeper and more profound relationship with the dharma, buddhism and dzogchen.

So i think what you're feeling is completely natural, and totally normal, and i can completely relate. But just let it be a signal that maybe a change of some kind is appropriate, what that is i don't know, and at this point I could never suggest that a different teaching would be more appropriate but maybe learning about other nondual teachings and comparing the similarities you find to what you already know could deepen your connection to the dharma. But at the same time perhaps not! You'll know what's right for you... but listen to that feeling inside and do what you need to do... i believe that "something" leads us in the right direction we need to go in to reach liberation... I've personally had waaaayy to many "coincidences" pop up and opportunities arise which i ended up taking advantage of resulting in auspicious circumstances and realizations to say otherwise. But listen to your heart, it knows the way!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Actually i suppose "mental states" isn't an entirely accurate title either due to the fact that those states would obviously be dependent on the presence of a mind. So projections or emanations of avidya... Maybe that's more appropriate. I guess it can be described on different levels depending on the frame of reference. Ultimately something the conventional properties and barriers of language fail to capture. I feel "mental states" is a useful title in it's place though and is a good pointer to start with.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 6th, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Hell in Tibetan Buddhism
Content:
thetrouserman said:
I learned from two of my Theravada teachers that hell is a real place of torture that you go to when you die if your karma is bad enough to merit going there. What is the Tibetan Buddhist view of hell? Is it the same?

Namdrol said:
In Tibetan Buddhism, in Mahāyāna in general, it is considered a mental state, but not a real external place.

Jangchup Donden said:
But that's true for the other 5 realms as well, right? (deva, asura, human, animal, hungry ghost)

krodha wrote:
I concur, my opinion would be that they're mental states which are product of dualistic grasping and ignorance of ones true nature. And this is why buddhahood is not one of the six realms of samsara and is absent in depictions of the Tibetan "Wheel Of Life". One cannot attain buddhahood if they're dominated by dualistic perception, they only transmigrate each of the six states and are "reborn" upon afflictions arising relative to the nature of their grasping. The rebirth is moment to moment, anytime the notion of duality arises and compels one to act(create karma) based upon sway of their delusion. And this is why upon becoming a 'buddha' one is no longer "reborn". And why one no longer "suffers" because suffering is a product of one's karmic consequences due to dualistic perception proliferating and becoming more and more compounded and engrained as habitual tendencies mature. You make your life a hell through being trapped in delusion, and ol' buddha was nice enough to give us the antidote for our misconceptions!

States of the mind born of dualism which reign supreme and subconsciously run rampant. Causing you to believe you're an entity who suffers in a realm separate from you who will one day die, and be reborn again in another realm.

Dualism is doubt.
From the emergence of subtle clinging
coarse habit gradually develops.
Food, wealth, clothing, places, companions,
The five desirables, and beloved relatives - 
Beings are tormented by attachment to the pleasant.
That is mundane confusion.
There is no end to the actions of dualism.
When the fruit of clinging ripens,
Born as pretas tormented by craving - 
How sad is their hunger and thirst.
Through the aspiration of myself, the buddha,
May desirous beings
Not reject the longing of desire
Nor accept the clinging of attachment.
By relaxing cognition as it is
May their awareness take it's seat.
May they attain the wisdom of discrimination.

Through the emergence of a subtle, fearful cognition
Of externally-apparent objects
The habit of aversion grows.
Coarse enmity, beating, and killing are born.

When the fruit of aversion ripens, 
How much suffering there is in hell through boiling and burning.
Through the aspiration of myself, the buddha,
When strong aversion arises
In all beings of the six states, 
May it be relaxed without rejection or acceptance.
Awareness taking it's seat,
May beings attain the wisdom of clarity.

One's mind becoming inflated,
An attitude of superiority to others,
Fierce pride, is born.
One experiences the suffering of disputation.
When the fruit of that action ripens,
One is born as a god and experiences death and downfall.
Through the aspiration of myself, the buddha,
May beings with inflated minds
Relax cognition as it is.
Awareness taking it's seat,
May they realize equality.

Through the habit of developed dualism,
From the agony of praising oneself and denigrating others,
Quarrelsome competitiveness develops.
Born as an asura, killed and mutilated,
One falls to hell as a result.
Through the aspiration of myself, the buddha,
May those who quarrel through competitiveness
Relax their enmity.
Awareness taking it's seat,
May they attain the wisdom of unimpeded activity.

Through the distraction of mindless apathy,
Through torpor, obscurity, forgetfulness,
Unconscious, laziness, and bewilderment,
One wanders as an unprotected animal as a result.
Through the aspiration of myself, the buddha,
May the light of lucid mindfulness arise
In the obscurity of torpid bewilderment.
May nonconceptual wisdom be attained.

All beings of the three realms
Are equal to myself, the buddha, in the all-ground.
It became the ground of mindless confusion.
Now, they engage in pointless actions.
The six actions are like the bewilderment of dreams.
I am the first buddha. 
I tame the six types of beings through emanations.
Through the aspiration of Samantabhadra,
May all beings without exception
Be awakened in the dharmadhatu. 

- Tantra of the Great Perfection Which Shows the Penetrating Wisdom of Samantabhadra


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: rTsa, rTsal, and the Fruition of Trekchö
Content:
Sönam said:
Sound is first ... as explained by ChNN

krodha wrote:
The manifestation of - sound - light - rays - in that order made me think of this video, which corroborates what the the teachings state about this. And is incredibly interesting.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Beatzen said:
On the one hand, I don't take Alan as an authority on Zen.  He's a pioneer for sure, but he was explicitly open about the fact that he was attempting to ameliorate some of the philosophical dead-ends in western philosophy by translating eastern philosophy so it was accessible to westerners.  In the end, he's still a philosopher, and not a buddhist.

krodha wrote:
What makes one a "buddhist"? I don't think he ever claimed to be an authority on zen, or claimed to be a buddhist, or anything of the sort, I'd say he knew better. He took more of an all-encompassing approach to eastern thought and it's essential purpose which is to bring about liberation. He described and presented what he knew in a straight-forward manner in order to instill that knowledge in those who were interested. He didn't take himself to be a teacher or guru or anything of the sort and actually despised the thought of having students or followers. At the same time he inspired thousands and got innumerable people interested in eastern thought/philosophy/teachings. Just because he wasn't exclusively a "full-blown buddhist" doesn't mean what he had to say was of any less value, it's not like he was presenting his own far-fetched translation of the teachings. Ultimately he's only whatever you say he is, whether philosopher, or buddhist is of little importance in my opinion... he thoroughly understood the nature of the beast called the dharma and was very much on-point in my eyes.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Understanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
One of reasons I like Buddhism is the quote attributed to Buddha where he admonishes students, "Don't take my word for it, find out for yourself!"  Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism without Beliefs" explores this eloquently but I cannot find it online today, maybe a copyright issue. In any case, we're advised to find out for ourselves rather than treating Dharma as Dogma.

krodha wrote:
Check out "Buddhism - The Religion of No-Religion" by Alan Watts you might enjoy that as well!

gregkavarnos said:
In (overly) simple terms:  reject ego, accept enlightenment!

krodha wrote:
Granted you said your statement was overly simple; but only an "ego" would reject an ego... or accept enlightenment for that matter, wouldn't you say?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 6:33 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Beatzen said:
note about this video link i posted above:  Not a "buddhist" teaching, just food for thought.  Watch it with an open mind.

krodha wrote:
It's not a buddhist teaching?! Surely it is! It is the epitome and crux of the issue... Alan Watts was an incredible man... funny that i just listened to this video converted to mp3 in my car earlier today.

He's speaking about how in Zen they don't give credence to the notion of a lower(egoic) self/higher self dichotomy(because the notion of either is merely imputation derived from ignorance; avidya) and they cut straight to the point and have the practitioner rest in nonconceptual awareness... dzogchen and mahamudra have similarities to this. You've heard the buddhist saying "you can't get to there from here" or "the shoreless ocean of samsara" it's because the idea that we are this separate little individual who suffers, living in "samsara" seeking "nirvana" is an illusion... and these methods are meant to ultimately deliver a direct innate experiential apperceiving of this being an illusion... which is the release from the illusion... and that is liberation.

So Watts is discussing that "the idea that we are this person who suffers and is seeking liberation" actually feeds the fire of the illusion. By struggling and fighting to "get there" you reify the notion of a separate self. The more you struggle the more the noose tightens around your throat. But at the same time, one cannot simply be passive and do nothing either... one needs to go to the base of the "mind" and sever it, by innately 'seeing' how it functions and what it relies on... what feeds the illusion. Keen investigation and skillful means will reveal one's true nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 5th, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
But you said "mind is a collection of thoughts and memories" and "things" are just "concepts or ideas."  Make up your mind.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure if you do understand emptiness to the full extent of it's implications. If it's grasped thoroughly it should give you a "holy shit" moment... it can't be left as merely an idea, it has to be applied empirically to your experience.

There is inherent existence as an actuality and there is conventional existence as an abstractive concept. Apart from conceptualization none of these "things" inherently exist. What I've been saying hasn't faltered or contradicted itself once, you just aren't comprehending what i'm saying because you're approaching it from a position of taking your point of view to be a solidified actuality.

The "idea" of a "mind" is an entity comprised of a collection of phenomena labeled as "thoughts and memories" by the phenomena called thought itself. The existence of this "idea" called "the mind" is dependent on the phenomena called "thoughts" in that 1) as a conceputal entity it is supposedly composed of "thought/memory" and 2) such an idea's origin clearly depends on conceptualization because the idea is not separate from conceptualization. So conventionally speaking, in order to bring about a realization in someone who wishes to apply "emptiness" to their experience in a holistic way, one approaches the presupposed conceptual entity called "the mind" and inquires as to what this notion is dependent on. Within the scope of conventional language we find that this idea is dependent on the arising of the phenomena labeled "thought" by thought itself - in "time" - as a series of consecutive arisings. When I say "mind is a collection of thoughts and memories" I'm conveying that what you take to be "the mind" is merely a concept composed of phenomena labeled as "thought and memory"(by the phenomena 'thought' itself) with the addition of another concept called "time". Time - is an idea... experientially there is only ever this present moment; the past is memory, which is vestigial imprints arising in this present moment. And the future is projected ideation about something that may 'happen', arising in this present moment. So experientially there is ONLY this present moment, which cannot even be called a moment because such a label would imply 'other moments'. "The mind" is actually dependently originated with aid from both of these concepts; time and conceptualization. The idea of a "mind" is dependent on the presence of "time" in order to be a "series of thoughts". The idea of "Time" is dependent on mind(thought/conceptualization). Likewise the "mind" is none other than the phenomena called "thought and memory". There is no entity "mind" as a separate container of thought or memory. Thought coupled with the illusion of time is telling a story about itself called the mind.

But not one of these "things" exists apart from conventional language and/or conceptualization.

And as i said before; when one looks at the mind, you see that the mind is made of constituents called thought and memory. So so far this intellectual deconstructing is dependent on mind(aka thought) and the mind(aka thought) is dependent on that which the thought is conceptualizing. So there is no mind separate from thought/memory... and no thought/memory separate from that which they(thought/memory) objectify. What is objectified is not separate from the thought/memory... and the thought/memory is not separate from mind. If that can be assimilated thoroughly what's seen is that there's no separation between any of them. And that there are no 'things' (branches, leaves, space) separate from conceptualization. And the collection of conceptualizations (in time; which is dependent on conceptualization) constitutes that which we call mind.

Once 'things' such as branches, leaves, space are seen to dependently exist on concepts (and the concepts dependent on those 'things'). And the concepts are seen to be dependent on mind (and the mind a conglomerate of concepts) one starts to see that a web of dependent origination starts to form and that these different designations are only a product of conventional language. Apart from the conventional language(which is useful!) these 'things' do not inherently exist.

yadave said:
It thinks.  I think we've even done this with computers now, cat brains: you put enough neural nets together and it starts having brain waves, it dreams.  Remarkable.

krodha wrote:
Consciousness(innate "being") manifests sound-like-phenomena labeled as "thought" which is no different than itself 'consciousness'. What we label as "consciousness" dreams, scans cat brains and all of these things but any activity is never separate from consciousness itself.

yadave said:
Hey, it was your quote.  Are you saying that we should accept only some of the Buddha's teachings and you know which ones to choose?  I'm telling Greg.

krodha wrote:
It was my quote? How so? Well obviously one should only accept some of the Buddhas teachings, a lot of those teachings were geared towards the people and circumstances of those times, in the frame of those peoples world-view. That being said, the buddha is just a story, the "Buddha" isn't treated like "Jesus" as some deity like actual historical figure which people worship. The buddha was merely a man who woke up, had a realization about the nature of being, and he shared this knowledge. A lot of practitioners of buddhist teachings who had high realizations after the "original buddha" was long gone actually attributed what they realized or wrote down to "the buddha" because the buddha is the symbolism or archetype which represents the awakened wisdom within themselves. The innate "buddha nature" everyone possesses, your pure timeless conscious-awareness. The buddha is no different than your own awareness or consciousness, "mind" whatever label you give it. So yes only accept what is going to work for you, otherwise you're a slave to a belief system scrambling to do things to try and make yourself happy.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - The Buddha

"Followers of the way (of Zen), if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma(method), never be misled by others. Whether you're facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with on the road, kill it! If you meet the buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet the patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go." - Linji

"The cause of bondage is mental construction; give that up. Liberation comes through the absence of mental construction; practice it intelligently" - Annapurna Upanishad

yadave said:
Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha.

krodha wrote:
Something like that... it is a religion of no-religion and if it's merely left as a philosophy entertaining intellectual gymnastics it will not flower in it's full potential. Belief is slavery. Siddhartha Gautama is just a name. You are the power.

yadave said:
I was reading a book and wanted to understand emptiness a little better.  I feel this was successful, thank you, and then there's various projections and things flying by in addition which, I suppose, is par for these forums.

krodha wrote:
I think that's great, good for you for seeking out a means to understand it better. Yes i'm sure there's lots of projections and things flying which are par for these forums, know them to only be projections though!

yadave said:
Sorry, I may state a question or position forcefully, as do you, in order to elicit a response, pro or con, but I am not trying to sell anything new, just better understand what is.

krodha wrote:
Well then we're much alike!

yadave said:
We do agree on some things.

krodha wrote:
I would hope so.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Title: Re: Own-being cannot be cognized
Content:
krodha wrote:
Your own-being cannot be cognized.

Fire cannot burn itself.

Teeth cannot bite themselves.

The eye cannot see itself.

You cannot outrun your own shadow.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
David Chapman said:
Personally, I don't believe certainty can be found in the opinion of any lama, no matter how "high" they are.  So there's no path that has an iron-clad guarantee. ..

Tilopa said:
So you don't have complete confidence in Ngakpa Chogyam or the Aro Ter path?

krodha wrote:
He's just saying the authority of whatever "it" is you believe to be authentic or true is never inherent in "that thing" itself. It's ultimately YOUR OWN belief and opinion that it's authentic. Although most will never admit that and they'll usually even refute it. If you told a Christian that there was no authority in the biblical scriptures themselves, but truly it's his own opinion that it's authoritative he'd most likely scoff and declare blasphemy. If the authority was inherent in the thing itself... Everyone would succumb to it. That is why beliefs and opinions have to be defended, because they don't have any power or value aside from what is projected onto them. Usually you get mass amounts of people projecting truth or falsity onto beliefs and opinions, and the sheer number of people behind the position being taken seems to validate the position to those involved. But fundamentally it's the same principle only on a collective and macrocosmic scale. It ultimately is your own judgement... Validity is lifeless apart from yourself.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 3:01 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
yadave said:
You are correct.  I will try to dot my i's in future and use "idealism" rather than "solipsism" to describe the view that "reality is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

krodha wrote:
Ok, but it isn't "mentally constructed" either, a mental construction would have to originate from a mind.

yadave said:
I did not know you were a guru.  Right on.

krodha wrote:
I didn't know I was either, but yes... right on!

yadave said:
I would need you to unpack this for me before I know how to respond.

krodha wrote:
Modern cognitive science and buddhism may have some parallel similarities on a relative level but ultimately they're not of the same nature.

yadave said:
Well, there is no "me" as you pointed out above and my concern was how your (1) and (2) treat the brain as a source of things.  I compare the brain to the heart.  Some years ago, Israeli scientists successfully coerced stem cells into heart cells and the damn things were beating.  It's amazing, they know how to be a heart on the cellular level.  Similarly, brains know how to think, brains exude thoughts.

krodha wrote:
I didn't say there's no "you", i said there's no "you" apart from the concept of "you", apart from the conventionality of language the self or agent has no inherent existence. But i suppose that's irrelevant since you're thoroughly convinced you're not equipped with any frame of reference with which to gauge what i'm saying. I'm essentially some guy talking on an internet forum, you can't believe there's no self or substratum, it isn't a philosophy, it requires first hand experience for validation. How can the brain be the source of things?

yadave said:
"Reality" is a word.  It is subject to the world's shared definition of it if we are to heed Buddha's advice and "accept what the world accepts."



krodha wrote:
Yes reality is a word, so is every other word on this forum. I'm using the term reality to describe this "happening" called life. If the Buddha truly believed that one should "accept what the world accepts" then everyone would remain in ignorance.

yadave said:
But it is a new paradigm, my Lord.  I think that should count for something.

krodha wrote:
I'm sure that day countless centuries ago when someone declared the world is indeed flat, that paradigm counted for something then as well.

yadave said:
Actually, lots of people are saying "the car really doesn't exist" or "ultimately, the car doesn't exist."  It's awful.  If this Ultimate Reality is not unreal then the car really doesn't exist and Buddhism reduces to Idealism.

krodha wrote:
Why would that be awful? Idealism asserts that reality is fundamentally a mental construction, again a mental construction would depend on the existence of a mind.

yadave said:
Seems simpler to just say "for Buddhists, the car is not what it seems" and if anyone is curious we explain how the car depends on many factors.  I mean, look at the expression "inherently existing".  Does *anything* have this property?  No?  The darn thing (i.e., the concept "inherently existing") is metaphysical to start with yet it litters every other sentence.  I appreciate its importance but wonder if we could leave existing language conventions, like "exists" and "reality", out of it and simply say "the car is empty" which has a specific meaning that differs from the notion of "empty space" which is what "nonexistent" brings to mind.

krodha wrote:
Why would this only apply to "Buddhists"? No-thing has inherent existence, every-thing is empty, including emptiness. It's no more metaphysical than believing you're a subjective entity encased in a body experiencing a physical world which is separate from you. And sure say "the car is empty".

yadave said:
The car will pass by and we will see it regardless of whether:

4) We both somehow magically create mental projections of the same blue car moving at the same speed; or

5) The car possesses an external reality / existence that causes us both to experience the same thing.

I'm a Number 5.  I think both (4) and (5) require us to grow up in similar environments where there are cars and such.

krodha wrote:
Ok, if you want to believe the car has an external existence have at it! I'm not here to win you over, i have no way to convey to you that essentially all that is, is timeless "consciousness" devoid of duality. Those are just words typed onto a computer screen, I really wouldn't want you to believe what i'm saying anyways in all honesty... adopting that as a belief and attaching to that would be just as counterproductive as insisting any other point of view.

yadave said:
The language is too far from the world.  Trust me on this one.

krodha wrote:
Yes that point of view certainly mirrors what you believe to be true.

I don't really understand the nature of this debating going on, refuting what's said, i mean it's all well and good refute what's said all you want it's just a conversation... but what is your perception of buddhism? Are you just here to stir the pot? Because that's great if that's the case, debates of this nature are good to get people thinking and answer questions for not just the ones debating but for others reading it. Or are you just attempting to have someone thoroughly convince you out of your conditioned point of view you've had your whole life? Only YOU can do that. You don't seem to be very "open" to the teachings, insisting the point of view you champion is some kind of ultimate truth.... almost like you're trying to convince yourself that your point of view is correct for reassurance. I'm not here to propagate some belief system or philosophy, the teachings may be presented in that manner but ultimately they're to be applied to yourself and to your experience, empirically, to bring about a change in perception and being. Buddhism is meant to radically alter life in it's entirety. The effects of the teaching are real, the change is real, but you have to want it, and you have to be open to it, otherwise you remain attached to an archaic conditioned point of view which only leads to suffering.... liberation is here for the taking, everyone wants you to know that love, but nobody can save you except yourself.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
David Chapman said:
asunthatneversets, maybe your friend knows something I don't... I've never heard that white=death symbolism, but it could be.

krodha wrote:
Ha yeah i don't know... I told him that you said the white symbolized the natural state and he texted back...

"BTW: To clarify what I remember saying: Red was pu**y blood: White was semen: And Blue was the central channel i.e. the natural state or politically speaking "the real" state of the union. White is the color of mourning in asian countries like China"

He's a wild man.

But you could be right! If you ever get a chance to ask someone who could verify it's symbolism i'd love to hear what you find out!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
That section where I asked "what your project itself is dependent on" I was just trying to show that the deconstructing and conceptualizing is a thought-based activity, so it's dependent on the mind, as an activity of mind. As you're sitting there looking at the tree, the act of analytically deconstructing the tree into all of those parts you mentioned is an activity going on in your mind; be it via cognitive visualizations or thinking or what-have-you. But i'm not saying that the "things depend on concepts and concepts depend on things", i'm attempting to convey that

1. there are no 'things' apart from concepts or ideas. The concept IS the thing.

2. There's no inherently existing 'thing' there. So there is no tree apart from the conceptualization of 'the tree'.

3. There isn't even a 'you' apart from the conceptualization of 'you'.

yadave said:
Thanks for clarifying.  I have no trouble with (3).  In fact, (3) agrees, in both meaning *and* language use, with modern cognitive science.  The brain is complex and most of what we experience happens prior to "us" "seeing" "it."

As they stand, your (1) and (2) are solipsism.

krodha wrote:
Definition of Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one's own mind, alone, is sure to exist.

They would be solipsistic if there was in fact an individual(subject) who possessed a mind, which was the center of activity. This isn't so.

As for (3) I'd advise not seeking to compare or validate any of these teachings with findings of modern cognitive science. Sure there may be some parallels on a relative level but modern cognitive science isn't of the same nature. Same goes for 'the brain'. Don't take my word for it, but if you treat the brain as the all powerful source of things, and that you are a product of cerebral processes there won't be much progress made. Reality isn't subject to materialism, idealism, solipsism or any of these designations, and neither are these teachings. Step outside of the modern cognitive scientific paradigm which reigns supreme in our culture, for it is just that... a mere paradigm.


yadave said:
To hijack a quote from Greg Goode, Ph.D.:
Buddha said:
What the world accepts, I accept.  What the world does not accept, I do not accept.

yadave said:
I do not accept us casually saying "that car does not really exist" as we watch it pass by together or capture it with a hidden camera for later viewing.  This language is too far from the world.  If "shared reality does not really exist" then we must diverge into a lengthy discourse on why reality no longer means existence as it is used in modern science and philosophy.  Granted, my existence project may go nowhere since the Heart Sutra is already loaded with "no nose, no eye" rather than "no nose Essence, no eye Essence", but hopefully I'll still get to Rome.

krodha wrote:
We're not saying "the car does not really exist"... it certainly does conventionally. But not inherently. Conventionally, you're projecting "a car" and projecting "two of us" to "watch" it "pass by". Everything in that sentence in quotations is a projection. I'm not sure if this language is too far from the world, or the world is too far from this language. More-so that the world is a product of this language. Again diverging into a lengthy discourse to prove whether this (i guess you'd label it as "un-modern philosophy?" according to your point of view) does or doesn't compare to the notion of 'existence' in "modern science and philosophy"; is again assuming that 'modern science and philosophy' is somehow 'more mature' or 'of greater substance'. This simply isn't the case. You're taking 'modern science and philosophy' to be a 'truth' and then creating a point of reference based on that projected truth. And then using that point of view/reference to judge these teachings and discourses. If you insist the 'truth' is in these modern schools of thought then you're shooting yourself in the foot to begin with. There will need to be a willingness to be open to the idea that these 'modern' paradigms may not be what you take them to be. Otherwise you're not open to reconfiguring how you experience reality, you're shut into a certain mode of thinking, taking that to be 'the truth' and then comparing all to it. Your 'truths' haven't liberated you thus far, maybe try being open to the idea that they aren't 'ultimate truths' but merely a product of the intellectual state of western man trying to prove it's misguided assumptions of a materialistic world. Your road to Rome seems to be crossing the himalayas backwards and naked. While these teachings are trying to show you that you never left Rome to begin with.

yadave said:
I have no trouble saying "the car is empty" -- Buddhism has a patent on "empty" and can say whatever it likes -- and when anyone asks what "the car is empty" means, we walk them through the deconstruction practice, help them see how the car's existence depends on innumerable factors, help them appreciate how the car is much more than it seems.  But the car still exists, otherwise we would not agree it was a car.

Or something like that.

Maybe there is no clear discussion in Buddhism on the elephant in the dream (no external referent) versus the elephant in the waking state (external referent, shared reality).

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
This isn't some mere philosophical pondering one does for fun. The elephant(or car) in the 'dream' is of the same nature of the elephant(or car) in the 'waking state'... and apart from conventionality there is no external or internal. It's the same empty 'screen' images are appearing on(the images being inseparable from the screen), only in the 'waking state' time and space appear to be more solidified due to ignorance. Reality isn't shared between anyone, in truth there is only a timeless display of nondual perfection. But I cannot ask you to believe that, and I hope that someday this apperception dawns upon you for the sake and benefit of all sentient beings.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, January 4th, 2012 at 5:37 AM
Title: Re: pondering the Vajra Cutter Sutra
Content:
trevor said:
In seeing that conceptualizing or thinking doesn't alter my state, I don't feel the need to for it and I don't expect it to make me feel better or expect a solution.

Strangely, I had a few moments of insight where thoughts were just recognized without giving them meaning. Without going into the content, I noticed that every thought plays out automatically, there's no need to do anything with them. I became confident that the thought will play out the moment I first saw it. The moments of noticing the beginnings of thoughts became just a series of uniform meaningless arisings. I was quite surprised at how fast these can occur. I started to notice moments (of clarity?) between arisings and then I found that I don't know how to tell the difference between the moment of clarity and the arising, because the recognition itself is just another meaningless arising. Then I somehow got overly excited about it and it was over Anyway, I wonder if that was the glimpse of nonduality.

krodha wrote:
That's good! However, In seeing that conceptualizing or thinking doesn't alter your state, and that you don't feel a need for it... Inquire into the nature of the one who believes these things.

Thoughts do play out automatically, everything is spontaneously arisen in the frame of considering 'things to arise'. The thought is liberated as soon as it appears. Seeing the thoughts as a series of uniform meaningless arisings is also useful, it's 'seeing' them in their 'suchness' as 'sounds' or 'noise', and eventually they won't be 'seen' as sound or noise and won't even arise or fall but will be timeless expressions of the true nature. But don't let that 'lead' you to seek that, just continue with your investigation. Expect nothing. Rest in those moments of 'clarity' (or whatever name you want to give them) getting excited or thinking they represent 'progress' will be counterproductive, if excitement arises immediately perceive that as a 'meaningless arising' as well, and let it self-liberate, continue to rest unmoved. The 'moments of clarity' will strengthen and 'become longer' if that makes sense, and you're right there ultimately is no difference between the clarity and the arising. But don't believe what i'm saying... just look for yourself... and don't let it 'validate' your conclusions... just continue to rest in that clarity.

Not a glimpse of nonduality, because it seems from how you described it that you still feel "you" are witnessing this 'happening'. What can help with this is to start to notice the habit of assuming there is 'time'... or a 'series of arisings' as you put it. Question this notion of time. Question the notion of 'space' between 'you' and an 'arising'. See that this notion of you(subject) witnessing arisings(objects) depends on these notions of 'time and space' and inquire into the nature of 'time and space'. Or locate 'that' which is untouched by 'time and space' and rest there, all of this falls in line closely to what you've already been saying so don't look too hard.

Apologize if it sounds like i'm preaching or teaching; don't believe a word i say... just look! Investigate empirically.

(All of this is my own opinion, i attach no authority to it.)


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Title: Re: The Aro gTér: some answers and questions
Content:
David Chapman said:
Instead of dark robes they wear white which symbolizes death...
This is not correct.  The white was originally natural, undyed cotton, which symbolizes the unaltered Natural State, i.e. Dzogchen.  (Nothing to do with death!  Usually white in Tantra symbolizes bodhicitta.  Offhand, I can't recall its ever being symbolically associated with death, although obviously bones are white.)  Nowadays the cotton is bleached, which makes hash of the symbolism but maybe looks nicer.
wear ridiculous hats, non-celibate, act vulgar... crazy wisdom type stuff
"Ridiculous" is a matter of perception, but I agree with you about that! However, the hats are again traditional within the Nyingma, and not specific to Aro (except in small details).

Like most ngakpas, most Aro practitioners are non-celibate.  (Is there a problem with that?)

Vulgarity is strongly discouraged by the Aro Lamas.  (We may fail to live up to that recommendation sometimes.)

None of us, including the Lamas, attempt "crazy wisdom".  "Eccentric decency" is what we aspire to.


Best wishes!  I'm happy to answer any questions about Aro, as best I can.

David

krodha wrote:
I was just told the white symbolized death from a friend, (who's root teacher is Ngakpa Chogyam) he may have just said that because traditionally in Indian culture i know they wrap their dead in white linen, maybe he was confusing the cultures customs?

"Ridiculous" is certainly a matter of perception! I only used that term to convey the severity in the contrast between the elements of their clothing compared to the non-tantric schools. I can't say i truly believe they're ridiculous... might be outlandish compared to little billy walking down the street with a SF Giants hat but again that's a matter of perception!

Is there a problem with being non-celibate? Maybe, if there was some type of virus which annihilated the population of the earth and the only three people left was myself, an Aro Lama and a pretty lady. And the cure for the virus was to have sex with the pretty lady, and whoever didn't get to her first was going to die... it might be a problem then.

A little vulgarity here and there doesn't hurt... everything in moderation.

Eccentric decency works for me!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


yadave said:
Hi Sunshine,

Forgive me if this is inappropriate, it feels awkward saying "Hi A Sun That Never Sets".  Let me know what works best.

Thanks so much for your interesting discussion of emptiness.  It reminds me of page 4 in the book I'm reading, "Essentials of Mahamudra",

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche said:
It is important to know why we practice meditation.  There are two main types of meditation: analytical meditation and placement meditation.  The Madhyamaka school has given us extensive, clear explanations of how external things or phenomena are actually emptiness.  In analytical meditation we meditate on these reasons and arguments; however it is very difficult to actually meditate on the emptiness of phenomena.  In the tantric, or Vajrayana, tradition of Tibet, rather than meditating on the nature of external phenomena, we meditate on mind itself.  The technique of mahamudra meditation is essential and unique to the Vajrayana tradition.

yadave said:
Your post is sort of like analytical meditation on steroids.  I find this very helpful.  Even sitting outdoors, looking at a tree, becoming aware of its branches, its bark, imagining its roots reaching into the ground, and going further, the rings in its trunk for every year, the wood cells, on and on and on.  It relaxes me and does alter my perception of this wonderful "tree" in front of me.  Is this an analytical meditation?  It sure ain't shamata.

krodha wrote:
Sunshine works for me! That is an analytical meditation, separating something into it's constituent pieces by means of mental deconstruction. There's many different types of analytical meditation, and especially in the theme of emptiness. It's good to start off with external objects, and then eventually move to yourself. If you google "Chandrakirti’s Sevenfold Reasoning" some good links come up... a guy by the name of Greg Goode, Ph.D has a great discourse on it, the link should pop up in that search close to the top. It's a similar meditation.

yadave said:
I tried to follow your exposition but, in all honesty, I get lost.  You sound like someone who is quite knowledgeable on the original arguments surrounding Nagarjuna's life and legacy.  From my modern naive perspective, I like Ken McLeod's definition of "mind" as the entire package of internal experience (feelings, thoughts, sense of self, aggregates) so some of your presentation, contrasting "mind" with "thought" and so on does not compute.  Nevertheless, I attempt the exercise, I deconstruct my poor tree upward and downward into infinite graphs of bigger and smaller dependencies.  At this point my poor tree is so empty you could spit.  (Ph-tooeey.)  Then I think you ask what my project itself is dependent on (this is an exercise in dependent origination) and you conclude that my project ("things depend on concepts and concepts depend on things?") depends on the tree it is deconstructing?  Not really.  If I were to continue this exercise, I might say my conceptual project depends on my interest in Buddhism which leads us to basic personality, disposition, genetics, random selection and things that may not have been popular in Nagarjuna's day.

So you lost me, friend!

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
The term "mind" can actually have a lot of different meanings in teachings like this, depending on who's coining the term. Most, like it seems Ken McLeod did; try to make it clear what they mean by "mind", i should've done the same in writing all that. Mind in the way i presented it is just the thought and memory based "mind". So mind in the way i used it, is a collection of thoughts and memories.

That section where I asked "what your project itself is dependent on" I was just trying to show that the deconstructing and conceptualizing is a thought-based activity, so it's dependent on the mind, as an activity of mind.  As you're sitting there looking at the tree, the act of analytically deconstructing the tree into all of those parts you mentioned is an activity going on in your mind; be it via cognitive visualizations or thinking or what-have-you. But i'm not saying that the "things depend on concepts and concepts depend on things", i'm attempting to convey that there are no 'things' apart from concepts or ideas. The concept IS the thing. There's no inherently existing 'thing' there. So there is no tree apart from the conceptualization of 'the tree'. There isn't even a 'you' apart from the conceptualization of 'you'.

Prior to, during and after the conceptualization of the tree; the clusters of sensation which are labeled as 'tree' are actually inseparable parts of un-fragmented fields of sensory perception. For example; the field of vision is only a field.. what is seen 'in' the field is not separate from 'seeing'. You can even say it's 'made' of 'seeing'. So as you sit there looking at the tree... the 'tree' is 'made' of seeing, it's made of vision.. and truly the tree 'is' vision. If you 'touch' the tree, there is no tree separate from the tactile sensation of 'touch'. What you call a tree is made of sensory perception. And sensory perception IS whatever is perceived. They are not separate, they are not two. What you call your 'body' is the same way. It's merely a part of sensory fields and is inseparable from sense perception. So there is no 'body' inherently. This is going to be counter-intutitive to how you normally accept experience to be, but that's the point of these inquiries and teachings. They are meant to bring about a radical change.

Ultimately 'sensory perception' or 'sense fields' will be seen as empty as well. And consciousness, awareness, life, death.... the rabbit hole gets deep.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:


Konchog1 said:
I understand that there are no labels without mind. And that there are no senses without phenomena. And that the mind is empty.

krodha wrote:
But more so that since 'senses and phenomena' are of interdependent origination they are not two separate things. Same goes for 'labels(thoughts/concepts) and mind(thought-based-mind)'... with any of these pairs, if emptiness is applied correctly, the direct intuitive knowing that the pair is in fact not-two or non-dual, should be very apparent. And this apperception should negate the inherent existence of said 'pair'.

Konchog1 said:
So the following verse means that everything exists due to the labels the mind puts on them but the mind itself doesn’t exist inherently? What does subject mean?

22. The manner of all appearances is the creation of one's own mind; the nature of mind from the beginning is free from the extremes of [mental] elaboration. Knowing this, it is the practice of Bodhisattvas not to make mental distinctions between object and subject.

-37 Practices of a Bodhisattva

krodha wrote:
Yes that 'things' exist because of the labels projected by the mind, and the mind-itself has no inherent existence beyond the labels(thoughts/concepts). One way to look at it is; the supposed 'mind' is projecting labels onto seamless fields of sensory perception... but ultimately the notion of 'sensory perceptions' needs to be seen as empty too.

Subject and object is 'self and other'... so you are the subject, or at least you feel you are... you lack inherent existence as well. There's no separation between 'you' and 'what you experience'.

"extremes of [mental] elaboration" in that verse points to how concepts arise in a dualistic schematic... hot implies cold, dark implies light, life implies death, up implies down.... etc..

Every-thing is empty and therefore lacks inherent existence. Things have conventional existence as "labels/ideas/concepts" but beyond their conventionality they are unreal.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Title: Re: pondering the Vajra Cutter Sutra
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
but if as you said "it is named thing, because it is not a thing" then what is "it"?

trevor said:
It's just a way of saying, there is no need to say anything more about "it". The point is that the thing is nonexistent. What blows my mind is that not only does this understanding completely stop all conceptualizing, it even burns the bridge, because discrimination itself is treated like that. There's no way back. I just can't wrap my head around it. It's so simple that it sounds like a cheat code to me.

krodha wrote:
But the "thing" isn't nonexistent. It may lack inherent existence, but it does have a conventional existence. The seeing that "things" are a creation of conceptualization is good in that it allows the thought-based-mind to relax and apperceive the illusory nature of clinging and projecting. But completely stopping conceptualization is unwarranted. In seeing the illusory nature of the conceptualizing the "power" or "concreteness" of the projections is taken away... so the "thingness" and "conceptualizing" of experience becomes like a mirage. There's no need to stop a mirage or reify a mirage... it's just a mirage, an illusion. The one who 'knows' this is part of the illusion as well, there is no 'controller' to stop conceptualization. So it's true that there's inherently no-things, but experience is still 'happening'... and upon the dissolution of conceptualization(which should negate previously held presuppositions) inquiry needs to be placed onto the nature of tangible sensory experience which undoubtably transcends labeling.

"All of this is but one's mind," That which was stated by the Able One, is to alleviate the fear of the childish; it is not [a statement] of [final] truth. - Nagarjuna

Dzogchen practice which cultivates 'presence' will ultimately cause "thought" to subside and fall into it's own pattern as an under-current removing it's influence... like a distant background noise no different than other auditory white-noise in experience. And if one is skilled, ultimately a state of nonduality and absence will literally cut any influence. But both are quite different than "seeing through" labels.

my own writing and opinions; except for Nagarjuna quote


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: The essence of Dzogchen
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,


Mind, as the non-ego centric mind would be the essence in Dzogchen.


Mutsog Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
The term Mind is used in a myriad of ways, what would constitute the "mind" in how you're using it? I'd say you have to be careful with labels, because the label implies a "thing" (or a collection of things) which automatically creates 'that which is not-that-thing'. Hence the duality of the ego-centric-mind and the non-ego-centric-mind...both are fabrications of avidya. As conventional concepts they can be good pointers in a given situation where they're appropriate, but ultimately neither can be the essence in Dzogchen, and ultimately both require negation of inherency apart from conventionality. The essence with how Namdrol used it would be a description of the "essential point" of the teaching or the "underlying theme". Like the essential point of collecting bottlecaps is to have a collection. The essential point of Dzogchen is to know your own state. But the essence as in a term attributed to the "base" which is what you deemed as "mind" ...is not mind...or the base. It is empty. And empty is empty.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Title: Re: pondering the Vajra Cutter Sutra
Content:
trevor said:
Reading the Vajra Cutter Sutra, my understanding so far is that the illusion of a thing is created by naming it - if the thing really existed, there would be no need to give it a label, because it would be evident even without name. It is named "thing", because it is not a thing. If it really were, there would be no need to make it evident by naming it at all. But that does not mean that we should try to somehow stop labeling or discriminating things, because the labeling itself does not exist (and is named labeling because it is not labeling). So I think that there is nothing to do or not do, one can just relax and the habit of believing in thingness will eventually die off, as it is seen through...

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, guys.

krodha wrote:
This may be essentially true but if as you said "it is named thing, because it is not a thing" then what is "it"? If by "seeing through" the "thingness" you meant apperceiving that the object isn't it's label, that isn't what this sutra is pointing to(im not sure if thats what you meant). What this sutra is saying is true but if it only stays on the level of conceptualization then it's just another idea. What the sutra is addressing is the illusory nature of the subject/object dichotomy altogether. That the illusion(subject & object) is created by the projection of labels and concepts. The dying off of belief(in the sense of becoming disbelief) would still give subtle power to the reality of whatever "it" is, which is believed/disbelieved in. So the "seeing through" needs to be a complete and total actual apperceiving of the unreality. Yes the labels are useful and only exist conventionally. But again merely believing this to be true is no better than believing in the opposing position. The habitual pattern of projecting self/other (being subconscious at this point) will most likely not die off 'in time' of its own accord. There will have to be effort when effort is required... And when no effort is required that will also be appropriate. But doing nothing in the sense of being complacent wont bring about any change.

I'm not sure what you understand or don't understand so everything I'm saying may be preaching to the choir for all I know!

And all this is my own opinion(I'm supposed to make that known)


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, January 2nd, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Misunderstanding emptiness
Content:
Konchog1 said:
These answers are of course based on my (possibly wrong) understanding so take it with a grain of salt.

1. Emptiness is a quality of things. There is no emptiness without objects. (HHDL's Heart Sutra commentary)

2. Emptiness is a translation. Other translations include voidness. Don't analyze the word. Things are not hollow or lacking in qualities. Emptiness simply means that things are empty of inherent existence. (Emptiness by Tashi Tsering) Not empty of anything else.

3. Correct.

4. Everything exists but not inherently. Not by itself but from conditions. Now you may say "Well duh, trees comes from seeds" but that's a mistake I made. It's deeper than that. Without branches, leaf, space etc. there is no tree. If it existed by itself it still would. Yet, the tree does exist due to conditions. Thus things lack inherent existence. Google Hume bundle theory for a good explanation of this.

5. Everything exists, just not inherently.

6. If things have conditions to exist they do not exist inherently. If things exist inherently they cannot have conditions to exist. These conditions bringing a thing into existence is dependent origination.

If something dependently originates it cannot exist on its own right and is thus empty. Also, because things are empty  they must have dependently originated.

7. Sure why not.

8-11.  Yeah

Nature of mind is another discussion, it is empty (of course just like every thing else) but in this context it refers to things like Clear Light.

krodha wrote:
It gets a little more in-depth than just seeing that "things" are only dependent on constituent qualities (such as a tree is dependent on branches, leaves, space etc..). There's different "tiers" or levels of the emptiness investigation and it's application to reality. In seeing that nothing inherently exists separate from causes and conditions the study actually has to descend to the most fundamental of levels in order to have a profound effect, otherwise it merely stays on the level of conceptualization(which is all well and good, but there's "deeper" realizations to be had).

This "emptiness" investigation is seeing that nothing exists separately from causes and conditions. So it's true on a conventional level that a tree isn't separate from it's branches, leaves, space etc... but to leave it at that; you're still left with branches, leaves, space etc.. (for the sake of what i'm trying to describe i'll treat 'space' as a thing) and these are 'things' as well. The evaluation can continue further and further to deconstruct branches and leaves down to their constituent particles(and the particle down to their constituents) but this process never ends and really never leaves the realm of the intellect. All of this evaluation is going on within the mind, fundamentally using concepts which are no different than the 'tree' you began with.

From here it gets closer to what was said above about separating the 'experience' of emptiness from the 'conceptualization' of it.

So what's been said so far is still using emptiness on the tier or level of deconstructing 'things' to constituents which ultimately end up being other 'things'. But what does this deconstructing or conceptualizing depend on? Depends on the mind. And when one looks at the mind, you see that the mind is made of constituents called thought and memory. So so far this intellectual deconstructing is dependent on mind(aka thought) and the mind(aka thought) is dependent on that which the thought is conceptualizing. So there is no mind separate from thought/memory... and no thought/memory separate from that which they(thought/memory) objectify. What is objectified is not separate from the thought/memory... and the thought/memory is not separate from mind. If that can be assimilated thoroughly what's seen is that there's no separation between any of them. And that there are no 'things' (branches, leaves, space) separate from conceptualization. And the collection of conceptualizations (in time; which is dependent on conceptualization) constitutes that which we call mind.

Once 'things' such as branches, leaves, space are seen to dependently exist on concepts (and the concepts dependent on those 'things'). And the concepts are seen to be dependent on mind (and the mind a conglomerate of concepts) one starts to see that a web of dependent origination starts to form and that these different designations are only a product of conventional language. Apart from the conventional language(which is useful!) these 'things' do not inherently exist.

Now at this point one will say "ok but i still see 'things', i still experience these things"... even if they're divorced from the notion of inherent existence on the level of conceptualization, the sensual 'happening' of life and reality is still there. I'm still here seeing sights, hearing sounds etc... so this can't be left at this level.

About this Nagarjuna states: "All of this is but one's mind," That which was stated by the Able One, is to alleviate the fear of the childish; it is not [a statement] of [final] truth.

At this point the investigation reaches yet another tier or level and this is where it really starts to have a profound effect. The sensual experience has to be investigated. Take the experience of that which we'd label a branch for example; in the investigation of the 'branch' you'll notice that this 'appearance' isn't separate from the sensory perceptions with which it's experienced. The 'branch' is dependent on the sensual experience of it. So the 'branch' is predominantly 'seen' and 'felt'(in addition to the other senses). You can even say the 'branch' is composed of the 'seeing' of it and the 'feeling' of it. Apart from the visual and tactile sensations, there is no 'thing'(branch). So the 'thing'(branch) is dependent on the sensory experience. But for this to be a true application of emptiness both sides of this have to be accounted for. And that comes like this; without the 'sight'(branch) there is no 'seeing'(sensory perception) of it. So the appearance of a sensory perception is dependent on it's percepts(objects of perception). So with this being ascertained; why even conceptualize two different designations(perception, percept)? Both designations are mutually interdependent co-arisen imputations. An 'object' is the cognizing of the 'object' and the 'cognizing' is dependent on the appearance called an 'object'. They are not two different things.

And this goes for every sensory perception.

From here however... the same investigation is directed onto the subject and applied to the position of the 'cognizer' a.k.a. the 'self which is perceiving'. One sees that the appearance of the self(subject which perceives) is dependent on the perceiving... and the perceiving is dependent on the perception. So no piece of the trifecta stands alone or has any inherent existence. They all collapse all the way down and the existence of the triad(perceiver, perceiving, perceived) is merely a conventional imputation overlaid onto a seamless 'happening'.

About this Nagarjuna states: The cognizer perceives the cognizable; without the cognizable there is no cognition; Therefore why do you not admit that neither object or subject exists at all?

From here the next tier or level goes to the awareness, or consciousness, or 'knowing' of this.

About this Nagarjuna states: The mind is but a mere name; Apart from this name it exists as nothing; So view consciousness as a mere name; Name too has no intrinsic nature.

The consciousness/awareness is also of dependent origination and therefore empty.

Time is also of dependent origination and therefore empty.

Emptiness is of dependent origination and is therefore empty.

These investigations allow for one to account for and see the dependent origination of every 'thing'.

And that these 'things' being of dependent origin lack inherent existence.

So if apperceived directly beyond mere conceptualization the reification of these 'things' as being concrete ceases. That includes yourself.... and the knowledge of this. So even though a realization is had, the realization likewise is empty.

I would've broke this down further but i gotta go!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, January 1st, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: The essence of Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Can't really be captured in words. It's kinda like the taste of ginger or something.. You can describe it to the best of your ability; say it's sweet or strong.. But the description doesn't really convey the real taste. Or another analogy would be trying to describe the color blue to someone who was born blind and has never seen colors. To know the essence in dzogchen is to taste it, experience it, and then integrate that taste into every aspect of experience so it's embodied... But not "embodied"... The words get tricky!

There's other metaphors to describe the essence... A mirror is used, in that the quality of the mirror is to reflect but remain unscathed by that which it reflects. And that it doesn't hold it's reflections. Or a crystal ball is used too. The ball acts as an aperture through which light passes.. And it seems to have the colors of things which are around it "on it" or "in it" but really it just reflects it's surroundings and remains crystal clear and untouched.

So these metaphors attempt to describe your true nature, which is the essence of dzogchen. Other than that, all practices and teachings related to it are only to aid in you discovering this and maintaining it. But he's right up above. You're it... But not you as in the "the story" of you... Not who you take yourself to be.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 2:38 PM
Title: Re: Aro gTér Dzogchen Community of Ngak'chang Rinpoche
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
re: Aro in general: its fun to play dress-up!

krodha wrote:
I was asking my friend about them earlier today after i made this post...

I guess they dress up like that to do the exact opposite of what non-tantra lineages do. Instead of shaving their heads they grow their hair out as long as possible. Instead of dark robes they wear white which symbolizes death... and the blue stripe down the center represents space, the red; menstrual blood, the yellow: nectar... wear ridiculous hats, non-celibate, act vulgar... crazy wisdom type stuff



I guess Ngakpa Chögyam just put out a book about his main teacher Künzang Dorje Rinpoche called Wisdom Eccentrics

A rare account of remarkable Lamas in the final years of a lost era. The author finds himself the first Western disciple of Künzang Dorje Rinpoche, a highly reclusive master known for mercurial wrath and facility with Dzogchen. He received direct introduction to the nature of Mind through ruthless interrogation on the meaning of the stories from the lives of Lineage Lamas. He is separated from his Lama for thirteen years—but they meet again and their relationship resumes.

In the interim he studies with the renowned crazy wisdom master Chhi’méd Rig’dzin Rinpoche. This wild cathartic sojourn gives rise to further stories—purveying an array of exuberantly startling scenarios.

Wisdom Eccentrics is a clear, accessible narrative set in creative contemporary language. The author’s fluent literary account is genuinely heartwarming, hilarious and humane—whilst retaining its power as an alarmingly insightful odyssey into the world of Vajrayana Buddhism.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Aro gTér Dzogchen Community of Ngak'chang Rinpoche
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
In a nutshell? They're a bunch of fakes and this is widely known.

krodha wrote:
Oh ok I had no idea that was the general view of them, but of course my experience has always been backed by bias opinion from my friend so that shaped my perception. I go with ChNN. What makes them fake? I'm just curious.. I hold a fairly moderate and indifferent view of them aside from what seemed positive in my brief experiences. But I also chose to not pursue any type of relationship with their lineage so there was something that didn't vibe with me although I can't say what that was. So my inquiry isn't contentious in any way whatsoever, but what makes it fake?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 31st, 2011 at 5:30 AM
Title: Aro gTér Dzogchen Community of Ngak'chang Rinpoche
Content:
krodha wrote:
I usually attend practices in the community of ChNN but I saw on another thread that someone wrote "that explains alot" in response to a quotation from a Aro related site. I took "that explains alot" to be a sarcastic statement (however i could be wrong). I was wondering what people's perceptions are of this lineage?

Taken From The Aro Site:
Ngak’chang Rinpoche (Ngakpa Chogyam) is the reincarnation of Aro Yeshé, the son of the extraordinary female visionary Lama Khyungchen Aro Lingma, who founded the Aro lineage.
Between 1970 and 1984, Ngak’chang Rinpoche spent extended periods in the Himalayas receiving teachings and transmissions from many of the most revered teachers of the Nyingma Tradition. During this time he accomplished all the traditional practices, and received all the necessary empowerments and transmissions, of a Nyingma Lama. Hailing from a financially disadvantaged background, he funded his trips entirely through factory work and manual labour in Britain. He completed—in varying sections—four years in solitary retreat – often living in extremely basic conditions with little to eat.
With the encouragement of his Lamas, he began teaching in 1979. In 1989, he was awarded a doctorate in Tibetan Tantric Psychology from the University of West Bengal. He has been a visiting lecturer at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology in California and has contributed articles to several books, journals, and magazines on the subject of Vajrayana Psychology. He has given several keynote presentations at international psychology conferences for the British Psychological Society, and the Association of Transpersonal Psychology in the USA
Ngak’chang Rinpoche is the author of six books, many co-written with Khandro Déchen. He is a Vajrayana calligrapher, poet, thangka painter, multi-talented Vajrayana craftsman, and exponent of Yogic Song and Lama-dance.


Taken From Wikipedia:
Aro is a lineage within the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism (Aro means "taste of the primordial A" in Tibetan). It has several unusual characteristics. The terma on which it is based teaches all Buddhist topics from point of view of Dzogchen, and so is characterized by uncommon simplicity. The lineage is entirely non-monastic (Ngagpa), and so emphasizes householder practice and non-celibate ordination. All of its contemporary teachers are ethnically non-Tibetan.

The Dzogchen point of view permeates Aro. The lower yanas (Sutrayana and Tantrayana) are re-presented in Dzogchen terms, and take on its characteristic style of simplicity, clarity, and expansiveness. Enlightenment needs only to be recognized, and is not produced by artificial means. Aro is therefore primarily concerned with bringing meditative awareness into ordinary life, rather than with elaborate, intellectualized, and time-consuming liturgical chanting. For Dzogchen, the ultimate practice is "living the view," i. e. experiencing and acting in the world as non-dual.

The Aro lineage is based on the Aro gTér, a terma or "revelation" of Khyungchen Aro Lingma. The Aro gTér has several distinctive characteristics: it treats all Buddhist subjects from point of view of Dzogchen; as a consequence its practices are simpler than the elaborate sadhanas typical of Tantric Buddhism; and it includes practices of semde and longde as well as the more common men-ngag-de. These characteristics make it particularly suitable for those with jobs and families, and therefore limited practice time, which accords with the Aro lineage's non-monastic orientation.

I've personally had limited experience with Aro. My "mentor" however considers Ngakpa Chogyam to be his root teacher (due to Ngakpa Chogyam giving him direct introduction) and attends their practices regularly (in addition to ChNN's community). I attended one practice and it was quite different than the practices at the Ling I go to for ChNN's Dzogchen Community. All of the mantras, chanting, singing is in english and there's more of an interactive discussion and atmosphere. It's very formal which isn't good or bad but wasn't what i was used to. I also attended an empowerment by Ngakpa Chogyam for the Owl-Headed Dakini. ( From Wikipedia: Within the Aro gTér, the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini (Wylie: 'ug gdong snying thig mkha' 'gro mdo; Sanskrit: Ulukha-mukha Dakini Upadesha Sutra) treats the major topics of Sutrayana from point of view of Dzogchen. It includes unusual presentations of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path, and of the Five Precepts. The Five Precepts are said to have inner meanings at the level of Dzogchen. )

Ngakpa Chogyam is a really charismatic and engaging teacher (in my experience) and the community overall seems to be great... He has quite a few books out and they're easily read and present simple and effective teachings which could definitely serve as a great supplement to anyones practices and/or understanding of Dzogchen...

So with all this in mind i was wondering why the mention of this lineage got a "less-than-desireable" response?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also makes me wonder if such conclusions by Jung were projections of his own 'shadow' (which was what his own work was based on). I remember another story about Jung i read, about an entry in his personal journals where he had been asking around in the 'metaphysical' community to see whether anyone knew of someone 'who truly knew themselves'. He wrote that someone told him there was a man in India by the name of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi who knew himself, and that he should go there. But Jung said he never went, because he was afraid of what he might've found out.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm just trying to say that during that era, when the west's exposure to eastern thought was in it's infancy; mistranslated text like Evans-Wentz' which ultimately led to a prominent western psychotherapist like C.G. Jung denouncing the profundity of those teachings... has to have sustained some sort of residual effect in certain circles.

I mean, i commend Evans-Wentz for his effort and passion in translating those texts but they're ultimately wrong and spread falsity. And such an influential character like Jung deciding that the teachings were not credible or had nothing to offer and stating that to be so has to have had an effect.

I know my friend was learning of Buddhist philosophy in his psychology or philosophy class (one of the two) and it makes me wonder if he'd even be receiving credible information... if the information had been derived from Evans-Wentz or Jung's conclusions.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, those who take interest and seek the truth will find that in the teachings. But it's unfortunate that there's a possibility of someone thinking they understand what the teaching is about and even deciding it's not worth their time based on the conclusions of Jung, for example.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 30th, 2011 at 4:26 AM
Title: Erroneous views on Dzogchen of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and C.G.Jung
Content:
krodha wrote:
Evans-Wentz played a pioneer role in the study of the literature of the Nyingmapa and Kagyudpa schools and produced a series of early texts(1919, 1935) in collaboration with Tibetan Lamas who were familiar with the oral traditions. At that time European scholars had little knowledge of any Eastern literature or concepts. Evans-Wentz himself came from a background of Vedanta and Theosophy, and working under assumptions derived from these schools of thought subsequently led to many mistakes in his translations of the Tibetan teachings.  He didn't know how to read Tibetan, never visited Tibet and never lived as a monk or under the guidance of any Lama. His letters and diaries only indicated a rather formal relationship with any Lama he worked with. The Tibetan texts he collected were roughly translated by the Tibetan Lamas who knew english and then those translations were further reworked and edited by Evans-Wentz over a couple of years. He approached the texts from the standpoint of modern neo-theosophy and occultism, Neo-platonic philosophy and modern popularized Advaita Vedanta which all erroneously led him to assert that the essential teaching of Dzogchen is the existence of a metaphysical entity which he called "the One Mind." And the purpose of Dzogchen was to somehow "merge" with this "Mind". C.G. Jung based his studies off of Evans-Wentz' information which led him to state that there was in fact nothing profound in the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. He further evaluated the "findings" of Evans-Wentz, subjugating and comparing them to his own views which only served to proliferate the mistranslations. He grievously misunderstood concepts used in the teachings such as the Dharmakaya which he mistook for khunzi or "storehouse consciousness" which he equated to the unconscious in modern psychotherapy. He mistranslated Dharmakaya as the aspect of our minds which is able to retain vestigial imprints (memories) which then have the ability to subconsciously dominate our perceptions. And that the purpose of infiltrating this aspect of ourselves was to account for these subconscious perceptions so that they can be brought to conscious attention and therefore no longer act as subconscious projections. So he took the aspiration of attaining this state of "nonduality" (which he again misinterpreted as accounting for dichotomous conceptual extremes in our experience) for attaining some kind of perception-less state of unconscious blankness. He spoke of the Tibetan philosophies and teachings with great disdain and said they had nothing to offer the west.

I'm sure during those times the ripple effects of these awful mistranslations took a prominent place in the west's perception of these teachings. And I know times are now different with the large accessibility to proper teachings and Lamas who spread the true Dharma.

But I can't help to think that these early mistranslations still hold a place in influencing the perceptions of those who only study Evans-Wentz and C.G. Jung.

And I can't help but to suspect that there has been further mistranslations based on Evan-Wentz' and Jung's writings.

Not that they truly matter anymore due to the real teachings being readily accessible like i said but....

How much do you think these early mistranslations actually had/still have an effect?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
krodha wrote:
I can see how you got that from what I wrote though. Both statements were meant to stand alone. Maybe an "and" in-between both would've been appropriate. Yes not very clear... But now clarified


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 25th, 2011 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:



asunthatneversets said:
And also be keen on distinguishing Dzogchen from the lower vehicles. Don't get caught up in the bullshit.


Namdrol said:
Lower vehicles are not bullshit.

N

krodha wrote:
Whoa! Never said the lower vehicles are bullshit... What's going on in this thread?! I'm in the misconstrued twilight zone


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 5:56 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Don't get caught up in the bullshit.

treehuggingoctopus said:
Oh, do I hear someone's voice in this one

asunthatneversets said:
Never become fooled into thinking "I get it"... because truly you can't "get it" conceptually. It can't be known within the traditional confines of acquiring intellectual knowledge. But the more concise the intellectual understanding; the more concise the pointing out is. So it's a thin line and this is where skillful means will help. Ultimately it's just like all those sayings though, just as the eyes cannot see themselves, just as one's teeth cannot bite themselves and just as fire cannot burn itself... you will not be able to intellectually understand the real meaning.

treehuggingoctopus said:
I know that your intentions are as pure as they can be. Still, I can't help thinking: are we really entitled to offer public advice on receiving direct introduction/recognizing the state? Would one be entitled to do so simply because one is a long-term practitioner devoted to the teachings?

krodha wrote:
That wasn't my intention I think I was just trying to convey the limits of the intellect in the teaching. I don't think anyone's entitled give advice on direct introduction unless they're a teacher. But even at that advice on direct introduction would be leading the student. Everything I writes just my opinion... Take it with a grain of salt


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
krodha wrote:
I actually never said "don't look at the finger"... that would be an ignorant statement. I said reading and understanding intellectually is all well and good in it's place.. because it is.. my point was just don't fixate on the finger, as in don't become too attached to it. But you're right, if you dont know where to look or the nature of what it is youre looking at, so you can be discriminative you're stuck/lost. It's a thin line.

And do make sure you revisit what you've read as you go along, because a lot of times in the beginning you might have difficulty assimilating a certain text, which at a later time when revisited is understood much more clearly. And that's due to the fact that statements and texts will start to either mirror your own sentiments or will describe your own experience, and that will validate your own path. A clear/concise intellectual understanding is incredibly important and serves as an unparalleled supplement to practice in that way.

So don't get me wrong, an intellectual understanding can be very useful. I mean, personally I consumed texts like a wild fire in the beginning, and i still appreciate them just the same. But one needs to know when to/how to divorce the experience from the intellectual understanding. And beware of a misinterpreted intellectual understanding acting as a suggestive force, because ultimately that obviously becomes counterproductive.

"Just as the Buddhas have spoken of "I" and "mine" for a practical purpose; Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates", "Elements" and "sense-fields" for practical purposes. " - Nagarjuna

And further, once the 'moon' (which the finger was pointing to) is identified in actual experience. There still needs to be keen discriminative openness to the practice. As you progress things will become subtler and subtler, and the tricks the mind will play to reinforce the conditioning will become subtler and subtler. So that's where fixation becomes an issue, on whatever level. Everything will come apart, and everything you once knew will be turned on it's head. This is the point ChNN is making in that quote you have as your avatar "It wasn't until later that I came to realize that I hadn't really understood anything at all."

"For those who are suppressed by false knowledge. And grasp the untrue to be true; In them arises from attachment; a series of grasping and contentions" - Nagarjuna

Never become fooled into thinking "I get it"... because truly you can't "get it" conceptually. It can't be known within the traditional confines of acquiring intellectual knowledge. But the more concise the intellectual understanding; the more concise the pointing out is. So it's a thin line and this is where skillful means will help. Ultimately it's just like all those sayings though, just as the eyes cannot see themselves, just as one's teeth cannot bite themselves and just as fire cannot burn itself... you will not be able to intellectually understand the real meaning.

And also be keen on distinguishing Dzogchen from the lower vehicles. Don't get caught up in the bullshit.

"Dzogpa Chenpo is the fortress of view, It's paths and stages are completed instantly. It is not comparable to the lower yanas" - Garab Dorje

"This (Dzogpa Chenpo) is the only resultant yana and it is the summit of all the yanas. Except for this one, other yanas are accompanied by accepting and rejecting, defending and negating; And are created by mind. They are the stairs (leading) to this yana. All the different tenets, divisions of yanas and the paths and stages - by accomplishing the great confidence in this realization - will be perfected in the equalness state without efforts." - Mipham Namgyal

*Edited like wild


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Study
Content:
krodha wrote:
Studying and taking notes is all well and good in it's place, but only serves to build a mountain of intellectual knowledge for one to become attached to. Everything in those books is "the finger pointing at the moon"... don't fixate on the finger, look where it's pointing.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 24th, 2011 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
mint said:
Is CHNN'S Music for the Dance of the Vajra supposed to be used as a learning tool, or is it simply an experiment in exotic world music?

I'm trying to find a recording of SOV so that I figure out its intonation, etc..

krodha wrote:
It's used as a support to remain in contemplation while in movement. Just as the ganapuja stimulates all the senses so you can incorporate/integrate them into contemplation. Movement(tactile sensation) with the mudras, auditory sensation with the bell/drum/mantras, taste with the food, smell with the incense, visual with the mudras/visualizations.

Song of vajra dance and music is the same type thing. Support to remain in contemplation. So you can eventually remain in constant nonmeditation.

Just listen to the song of vajra in it's suchness. As white noise almost. Let it pass as a reflection and remain as the mirror.

The sound of traffic and people bustling in the streets is the song of vajra... Integrate integrate integrate


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 5:00 PM
Title: Re: Trungpa Rinpoche's "Crazy Wisdom" & the Steinbecks
Content:
krodha wrote:
I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.

- Drukpa Kunley "The Saint of 5,000 Women"


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 21st, 2011 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
mint said:
So, when a person enters nyamnyid and/or lhundrub, does the pain typically associated with getting hit by a brick cease?  Is this due the dissolution between subject and object, realizing that the energy of getting hit by a brick is the same sort of energy as having sex, etc.?

krodha wrote:
I'd say don't even try to form an idea of what any aspect of fruition would be like. Holding the expectation negates abiding in the base and is actually a projection of mind. See that an expectation of a 'future' event (or state) is just a presently arising thought, and the presently arising thought is merely an empty play of the primordial nature. Which as Namdrol was pointing out above, seems to arise, seems to abide, and seems to fall... but does it? Be here now. The base is ever-present.

But for the sake of conventional conversation; upon the dissolution of duality, the qualities(characteristics/properties) which constitute a brick or pain would be empty expressions of the primordial nature. Putting it into words becomes clumsy because one has to use descriptive language which conveys elements of experience which are absent in the base. Even now, our language actually conveys elements which are not present in experience. Alan Watts gives the example of the famous 'it' in "it is raining"... what is this 'it'? It's just a convention of language. All language is like that, it populates experience with 'things' which are not evident when investigated empirically. Some are harmless, like the 'it' in 'it is raining' and some are very powerful and become engrained subconsciously like 'you' and 'me'.

So for this reason a nondual experience cannot be described accurately at all. But to ignore that fact for a moment, and attempt to frame an answer to your question in a clumsy way which ultimately misrepresents the actuality of what it would be like: you would BE the pain, and the pain would be a play of your nature, but 'you' would be absent so the pain would appear to itself and any notion of it being an unpleasant or pleasant experience would not arise. I mean, we can't even comprehend how profound a state that is at that point. That's why you read all these stories of miracles and 'powers' because the constructs of space and time, subject and object are no more. But THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is; do not strive for that, don't want or wish for that, don't expect that, in practice if miraculous experiences such as visions or experiences of nonduality arise view them with an attitude of indifference... do not care, never think you have achieved anything. Know that all is a play of the primordial nature, reflection on the mirror, if something miraculous arises and there's an inkling of achievement correct for that immediately and remain unmoved. Just remain in the base and there will be no limit to your practice. Don't postulate any kind of notions about what the culmination of effort would be like, because it's coming from the perspective of ignorance(avidya). Humility and earnestness are of utmost importance.

*All this is my unfounded opinion


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


Namdrol said:
No, generally speaking sentient beings have no idea that they are in bondage or suffering from some kind of mistaken perception about anything. The Rosary of Pearls explains:

Having been gripped by the apprehending subject and apprehended object
in the aggregates, elements and gateways,
one remains in samsara itself for a long while,
within the belly of the three realms
 one is placed in the prison of name and matter, [352]
bound by the chains of ignorance,
covered with dense black darkness of samsara,
attached to the spicy taste of passion,
one is bound by the noose of confusion,
tormented by the hot fire of hatred,
one’s head is covered by pride,
the gates of jealously are locked,
surrounded by the armies of resentment and so on,
tied about the neck with the noose of apprehending subject and apprehended object,
stuck in the swamp of past traces,
one’s hands are shackled with ripened karma,
the mother of karma is joined with her child,
one following the other just like a water wheel,
alternating between good and bad bodies,
born in different forms,
and through heightening one’s self-grasping
one sinks to the bottom of the ocean of suffering, 
one’s heart is grabbed by the goad of the evil destinies, 
one binds oneself with the enemy, afflictions. 
Fire appears as water to hell beings,
as hunger and thirst to  hungry ghosts,
as fog to animals.
the aggregates, gateways and elements appears as the five elements to humans,
those are also pleasurable, painful and neutral,
as weapons and armor to asuras,
and as desirable things to gods. 
For example,  just like a rapidly spinning fire wheel
one abides continuously in samsara for a long while.
Such various appearances are like seeing a snake in a rope
since what isn’t there is held to be there,
both the outer and inner container and contents form,
and if that is investigated, it is a rope,
i.e. the container and contents are already empty
the ultimate with the form of the relative.

krodha wrote:
True, good observation. I made the statement coming from the perspective of one who had already formed a relationship with the teachings and didn't account for the fact that this is not the case for most.

Namdrol said:
Delusion is not a part of the basis and is not fundamentally pure.

krodha wrote:
Because otherwise one would mistakenly assume that the delusion is the basis and remain deluded, so distinction is necessary... that makes sense.

Namdrol said:
Dzogchen states that basis is free from ignorance from the very beginning. All of our deluded experience comes from not recognizing the basis itself. There is no ignorance in the basis. The Transcendence of Sound states:

“Ignorance” is not possible
in the essence, the wisdom of original purity.

The Letterless states:
Since my self-originated wisdom is pure of delusion from the start, it is beyond the extremes of being and non-being.

Also the Luminous Clarity states:

The essence, the wisdom of original purity,
is free from the stain of ignorance

The Rosary of Pearls states very clearly:

The mere term delusion cannot be described
within the original purity of the initial state,
likewise, how can there be non-delusion?
Therefore, pure of delusion from the beginning.

krodha wrote:
I'll have to watch how i present what I say and make those necessary distinctions because you're right otherwise it's like you're giving someone license to be complacent and delude themselves further into thinking they're not deluded, which is dangerous. Thanks for pointing that out!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


mint said:
So this is what is meant by there being no actual sentient beings to liberate.  Sentient beings are the reflections of mind's energy and the mind itself is empty, being only further energy.

So, in actuality, my mind's perception of other people learning and teaching Dzogchen is all just a play of energy of the primordial nature like a motion picture spontaneously manifesting on the big screen of mind.

krodha wrote:
From the perspective of avidya(ignorance/dualistic perception) the notion that one is in 'bondage'(samsara) governs one's point of view... which is then projected onto 'others' who are also in 'bondage'. With the notion of bondage(samsara) the polar idea of 'liberation'(nirvana) automatically comes into being because it's a mutually interdependent co-emergent concept.

From the perspective of vidya(rigpa/nondual perception) the innate knowledge that the 'one' who was in bondage(samsara) was a misconception is made apparent beyond a shadow of a doubt. This apperception literally removes the point of reference(subject) which was used to project the appearance of 'others'(object) in need of liberating. So it isn't that one reaches a 'state of liberation' which was originally conceived from the perspective of the apparent 'bondage', but ascertains that the notion of 'bondage' is a misconception which is dependent on a subject which is illusory. And this knowledge automatically negates the notion of liberation(originally conceived conceptually from the perspective of pseudo-bondage by the pseudo-subject), and that is liberation. It's deeply intuitively perceived that samsara and nirvana are both equally unreal projections of ignorance, and that the seeker is the sought, and when this happens, the individual disappears along with the projected others.

Dzogchen cuts straight to the point and states that experience is fundamentally pure from the very beginning. All that "is" is a spontaneous play of the primordial nature which is itself empty.

So it isn't 'your' minds perception. And clinging to the notion that there are 'no others' or 'no self' is actually a subtle trap and trick of the avidya. Accepting or rejecting the notion that there are 'no others' or 'no self' is exactly the same as accepting/rejecting the notion of 'others' and 'self'. Because both are 'ideas' held in the pseudo-mind, and attachment or rejection to ideas, concepts etc creates the pseudo-self which is a symptom of the apparent thought based entity called the 'mind'.

Dzogchen accounts for this error by discouraging futile attempts at intellectually understanding and states that ALL is a reflection of the base and is inseparable from the base... phenomena is a projection(reflection) of the noumenon(primordial nature) which is itself empty. Experience is viewed in it's suchness without attachment or aversion. And if one has a keen eye, as stabilization in suchness escalates these ideas and concepts we're attempting to discuss are innately apperceived experientially and the nature of experience is altered dramatically.

But bottom line is this can't be understood intellectually. So don't believe any of it, just LOOK at experience empirically and it will 'do the work' for you. Until it dawns experientially treat all as conjecture and take refuge in the actuality of life unfolding in the immediacy.

So your question of the objectivity of a brick, or objectivity of pain from a brick hitting you on the head is conceived from the spontaneous play of the primordial nature mistakenly identifying in relativity with specific elements of it's own 'play' via the projection of conception and attachment to those concepts/specific elements through habitual conditioning. This creates the pseudo-entity. Avidya arises from this identification. It is this pseudo-entity which suffers pain and bondage and seeks liberation. 'I' cannot possibly suffer because 'I' is not equipped with any instrument with which sensation could be experienced. And the base cannot suffer because the base is itself empty and suffering is a reflection of itself. Any experience, pleasant of unpleasant, can only be experienced by the mis-identified phantom object called 'me'.

*This is my own opinion, I declare no authority in any of it and it is open to being dissected, trashed, ridiculed, examined etc...


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
mint said:
Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

krodha wrote:
While this is somewhat off topic in regards to the nature of your question(in the context of the dharma); you should take a look at some 'kirlian photography'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography It's a method used to photograph the energy fields generated by living entities and other objects. You might find it interesting... they did kirlian photography on human subjects and had them produce different emotional states and their energy field(aura) which surrounded them changed colors with each emotion.

Obviously a different notion than rolpa/tsal but your question reminded me of it.

Youtube: Kirlian Photography Explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDOi1BLoN3U

Youtube: ( Kirlian/Aura-Photography ) -of raw foods
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBjc9rIFNY


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
krodha wrote:
Oh and there's also a book called

"Healing With Form, Energy And Light: The Five Elements In Tibetan Shamanism, Tantra And Dzogchen"
by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche

which might be a good read if you're interested in learning more about the energetic aspects of the teaching.

I think he has some vids on youtube discussing them too.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Question: If you realize that everything is your own vision then how can you help other beings? What is the answer?
LTN: The answer is that you help them because they are self-vision. Beings are also self-vision. Inherently helping them is not possible.

mint said:
Thanks for posting this.  Based on what I just read, to make sure I comprehended it fairly, in this very moment where I think that I am typing a response to this thread on my computer, seeing the computer and the text on the screen as something separate from me, this is all just a play of energy by the primordial nature, right?  And it is avidya which attaches itself to these reflections of energy?

So, when I think I see Namdrol offering sound advice on how to practice Dzogchen, there really is no Namdrol or advice separate from the primordial nature?  And the things that I mistake as being Namdrol and sound advice are really nothing more than the reflections of the energy of my primordial nature?  So, even ChNNR is really nothing more than a play of mine own energy emanating or manifesting from the primordial nature (samantabhadra)?

So, this would mean that the reason why my girlfriend would share a similar karma to mine, the reason why we have a relationship, is because our individual mind streams have crossed in the primordial nature?  The reason why we seem to exist to each other is due to the play of interlacing energies?

krodha wrote:
Conventionally speaking that is a fair comprehension. But you who would comprehend are a reflection as well, so this comprehension can't be held. If the comprehension is attached-to it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you', likewise if it is rejected it gives rise to 'you' and 'other than you'. The primordial nature doesn't accept or reject any 'thing' because nothing is separate from it. It just spontaneously manifests.

So it's not like your individual mind-steam crosses paths with your girlfriend's individual mind-stream. This is why what Lopon was saying regarding the recognition that nothing exists separately from thought(concept) is key. And that turning back to investigate the source of the mind and thought is key. Because neither can be found, there's only the primordial nature which is itself empty.

This all has to be done experientially that's why attempting to 'understand' becomes problematic. The base(primordial nature) is free of the 4 extremes(existence, non-existence, both and neither), the recognition of the base is more of an innate knowledge(not intellectual) like one knows they're alive, by 'being' alive. What 'appears' is a timeless manifestation of the base and is not separate from the base, but nothing can be said about what 'appears' since being the same as the base it's free of the 4 extremes. That metaphor; like a bird flying through the sky leaves no trace. Is how appearance manifests as a reflection. Like it flows from nothing to nothing - constantly - and is ever-fresh and new... but the notion of 'time' is only in mind, and mind is empty - so 'fresh and new' is empty - 'flow' is empty - 'constant' is empty. But those empty notions help to "point" from ones current perspective (which is avidya).

So this is why the practice is experientially resting in the primordial nature at all times, all day, every day.

'I comprehend this... fairly' is experientially a thought(i.e. noise/sound/play of energy/reflection - inseparable from the base) which manifests and is immediately self-liberated.

The nature of phenomena is nondual,
but each one, in its own state,
is beyond the limits of the mind.
There is no concept that can define
the condition of "what is"
but vision nevertheless manifests:
all is good.
Everything has already been accomplished,
and so, having overcome the sickness of effort,
one finds oneself in the self-perfected state:
this is contemplation.

- Vairocana

(For the record: What is NOT in italics is my own attempt to describe the indescribable and convey the futility of doing so... I was told to say so... I declare no authority in any of it... <--- pig)


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
krodha wrote:
"....Mind (citta) and mental-function (cetasika), in and of itself, comes into being in three stages.

[First stage:] The accumulation of vestigial-imprints (vasana), derived from the formative impulses (samskara) [of Creation], proliferate [from the first moment onwards] and evolve; when the [compounded] power (prabhava) of that has ripened [i.e., has obtained 'critical intensity'] then Mind-in-itself (cittatva, the essence of citta) manifests forth (abhasa) as subject and object, or in other words as Subjective Being (atmabhava, Tib: lus) and Existence, which nevertheless has no more 'reality' than the life in a pile of bones.

[Second stage:] Identification (lamba) with the activity of the continuum (santana) of evolving imprints (vasana) results in the formation of the 'psychic monad' (manas), experienced as a 'self' (atma), which it is not.

[Third stage:] As a result, the obscuring effect of the impulse-to-come-into-being (samskara) produces a subtle diminution-of-awareness, giving birth to a specific local consciousness. 

Through the power of mind combined with the continuum, ensuing conceptual-constructions (kalpa) further negate realization. From that [i.e., from the above three modalities], having the nature of a contaminant (asrava), conceptual-constructions of self (atma) and phenomena (dharma) become serially reiterated...."

"Therefore, from the first instant (ksana) of [the continuum of] mind (citta), the subjective Being (atma-bhava) and all phenomena (sarva-dharma) are present. From the cathectic-functioning of mentation (cinta) there proceeds the appearance of origination. Yet no phenomena exists for either ordinary people or for enlightened Saints other than the continuum (santana) of their own mind (citta). The whole diversity (vicitrata) that exists for the six types [of sentient beings] is just their own internal-contemplation (samadhi)."

"Because there are no boundaries, a focus-of-attention (prabhana) and a locality (sthana), cannot exist. How then can conscious perceiving [i.e., the 'act' of consciousness] arise? Therefore mind is separate from the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and is neither one nor many. In that the Enlightened state of the Blissful Ones is not [objectifiable], the deceit of appearance (abhasa) is like a magical apparition. In the same way [as Enlightenment is not objectifiable], so also, immaculate Gnosis, and the pure continuum of goodness (kusala) that is the Source of Reality (dharmadhatu), are misconstrued as having an existence, and hence as being objectifiable [i.e., an object separate from consciousness]."

"Since neither the meditator nor the Source of Reality exists, there can be neither uncertainty nor certitude of view. Thus, if one enquires into the conception of "Existence," even as an apparition it is without an independent-nature (svabhava, own-nature). Consequently, even this nonexistence, depending as it would on existence, is not; nor does the nonexistence of nonexistence exist! Since all finite concepts are negational, the concept of "middle" (madhya) is equally negated, and so one should not even try and abide in a Middle View (madhyamaka). However, just as the Lotus Lord of the World (Padmalokisya, i.e., Avalokitesvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassionate Love) does not reject even one [sentient being], but sees all [beings] alike and equal, so too should one understand that even to see [all as] a deceit is itself a deception."

"When there is no identity [of phenomena], everything that exists is the Source of Reality itself. To know this is the Supreme Yoga of the Arhats! Just as space (akasa) is not substantial - it is just a name - positive (kusala) and negative (akusala), being inseparable, never arise."

- Manjusrimitra (Bodhicittabhavana)


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 7:23 AM
Title: Re: Questions about energy
Content:
mint said:
I don't know much about this topic so I don't know how well I'll be able to follow along this topic after I start it, but I'll try to follow for as long as I can.

Some new agey folks talk about all beings having a so-called "energy field." When they say this, I think what they are saying is, quite simply, that all beings are energy.  Sometimes they like to throw in Eastern words like "chi."

I'm not really sure what to make of this so-called energy field, nor am I sure how it may possibly relate to Dzogchen.  Bear with me as I butcher what Dzogchen has to say about the relationship between the essence of the base and the energy of the base per Dzogchen.  From what little I've read, the energy that manifests as thoughts, dualism, and samsaric experience finds its root in the base, our primordial nature.

Now, here's where I'm getting confused.  Rather than formulate my concepts, I'll just ask questions:

Is this energy "real" - in the sense that, though it is the manifestation of my primordial nature, it has the ability to affect me, help me, harm me?  Is there any objectivity to a brick, for instance?  Is there any objectivity to a brick hitting me in the head?  Or is it all just a manifestation of energy from my primordial nature?

Second question, is there any objectivity to the people in my life?  Or are they manifestations of energy, as well?  If everything is to be viewed as if in a dream, then are all the experiences that I imagine as real simply a play of energy/imagination?  For instance, if my girlfriend is telling me a secret while a train is rolling by and birds are chirping nearby and I'm thinking about lunch, is there any objectivity to what is happening or is it all just a play of energy of mind (sems)?

Third question, is there any relation between the so-called energy field that the new agey people talk about and the energy that Dzogchen talks about?  Is it possible that all beings and all things have an energy field because all things are nothing more than the play of energy, light and insubstantial color?

If there are any texts that I can read which might clarify any of my confusion, I do own the following books so feel free to reference page numbers or other texts that I might consider:

Song of the vajra
The crystal and the way of light
Concise commentary on the short thun
Precious vase
Fearful simplicity
The mirror
Dzogchen the self perfected state
As it is vol 1

Thanks for bearing with me!


krodha wrote:
"From the point of view of bodhicitta (the natural state), you cannot explain the difference between the base, energy or the reflections. That is because it's nature is emptiness (i.e. the natural state) and to emptiness there is no distinction between them. For example, in the ocean itself, the clearness of the water (energy) and the reflections in it are not different from the water - they appear but they are not beyond the water. If you look from the point of view of reflections (i.e. individual things) there is no contradiction either. From that perspective you can see that the ocean and it's clarity and reflections are distinct from one another. However, according to the natural state none of the reflections has a real base. There is no inherent existence in them."

"The energy to reflect (tsal) is a property of the ocean, so the reflections (rol pa) and the energy are unified in it's nature (gzhi). Sometimes only two terms are used: gzhi (the base), and tsal (reflections), these two referring respectively to the capacity to take reflections (subject side) and the reflections themselves (object side)."

"You cannot say the natural state is empty or has reflections or whatever. Like water which is also wet it is both things at once - neither term captures this reality, which is beyond words. You can't say it is empty because it is not graspable - if you say that it is empty you try to enter the state whilst grasping the concept of emptiness. The real fact is beyond all concepts."

"Nothing exists beyond the natural state. Earth is not independent of the natural state; visions are not independent visions. Everything is a vision of the natural state. The natural state is like a single point; the natural state is like where birds fly - behind there is no trace. If you understand this point you will realize that the natural state is the creator of all things - the king of creators."

"What is reflected in the mind does not independently exist; both internal and external are spontaneous reflections in the natural state. To do this is a natural quality of the primordial state, but it does not mean that these reflections are solid, independent and inherently existent. They arise from the natural state and go back to it; it is our ignorance that grasps them as independent."

"...[Lists a series of things you can imagine or envision] ...Finally dissolve all visions into the natural state. What is left? Then dissolve even your thought itself into the natural state so there is nothing left. Then you will realize that everything is made by thought - everything comes from there. You have to realize how things are created."

"The result is seeing that everything is created by your thought. Once you finally realize this you can check back to find it's origin. All things are created by your thought and mind - and if you look back to the source of your thought and mind you will find that is disappears. It dissolves and goes back to it's nature. That is the limit; every individual thing is dependent on the mind."

"All vision is like a dream. In a dream, a vision is just a vision to the mind, even though whatever appears looks like real material to the dreamer. It is just the same when we are awake. All appearances come from the karmic traces - they all come to the mind. Apart from mind nothing exists at all. The difference between dreaming and awakening is just in time - that is all."

"All the visions come from themselves and are seen by themselves. Everything is the reflection from itself. There are no objects inherently. Everything is the 'Great Vision' therefore there is no way to help others.
Question: If you realize that everything is your own vision then how can you help other beings? What is the answer?
LTN: The answer is that you help them because they are self-vision. Beings are also self-vision. Inherently helping them is not possible."

- Lopon Tenzin Namdak (Heartdrops Of Dharmakaya)


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 1:09 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Your nature escapes all distinctions... but for conventional purposes of communicating with one another; awareness, or consciousness, or innate cognizance, uncontrived wakefulness, (whatever label you wish to use) all serve to point to one's nature.


Center Channel said:
Maybe for you.

I prefer more precise terminology which I outlined twice.

krodha wrote:
That's good


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


Namdrol said:
Academic, if you have not distinguished the two.

N

krodha wrote:
Most definitely.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Understand that Dzogchen is a teaching which is meant to reveal your primordially pure enlightened state which has been absolutely perfect since beginningless time.

Namdrol said:
You really don't understand Dzogchen yet. But that's ok. Eventually you will. In the meantime, make sure that you pay attention to karma.

N

krodha wrote:
I respect your opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The starting and ending point is the same space of awareness.

Namdrol said:
Nope. There is a huge difference between mind (citta) and vidyā.

N

krodha wrote:
I'd replace 'huge' with 'monumental'.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 10:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
Right now, and from now on, I would like to ask you to make clear the difference between your opinions and Dzogchen teachings coming from qualified teachers. Most of us are careful and try to do that. Informally, of course. It's a request, not an admonition or anything of the sort, OK? If I say something about Dzogchen and you ask me why do I say it, I can say who taught me that way, what is my experience and my opinion. Is that alright with you?

krodha wrote:
That's fair, I apologize if anyone else has felt i'm overstepping my boundaries in speaking.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 8:43 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Center Channel said:
Everyone's nature is the inseperability of clarity (i.e. mirror-like) and emptiness (i.e. can't point to the mirror with your finger).

By recognizing one's nature, one gains knowledge (rigpa).

Thus there is NO place for the word "awareness" at all

Ka dag certainly does not translate to awareness.

Neither does lhun grub.

So what word is being translated as "awareness"   ???

krodha wrote:
Your nature escapes all distinctions... but for conventional purposes of communicating with one another; awareness, or consciousness, or innate cognizance, uncontrived wakefulness, (whatever label you wish to use) all serve to point to one's nature.

The inseparability of clarity and emptiness attempts to describe the attribute free quality of your conscious presence. It is clear and luminous in that it shines forth illuminating experience which is clear and fully apparent. While the emptiness points(as you stated) towards the fact that when you try to locate this awareness(or conscious presence) nothing that is a tangible quality one can point out can be found. So this is why it is said to be your unborn nature. It is timeless in that it is ever-present, and it transcends the extremes of existence and non-existence. It is primordially pure in that since beginingless time it is unassailed by any occurrence. Pristine and clear in that nothing obscures it's presence. It is vast in that nothing escapes it's touch in this present moment. And spacious because as an aperture for experience, it can be represented as a space which remains untouched as it allows that which appears in it to 'be' without effecting it's fundamental nature.

Kadag translates to 'primordial purity' and Lhun grub represents interdependent origination.. even though it's considered illusory in Dzogchen.

"all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination. But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist. What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice.

- Manjusrimitra (Bodhicittabhavana)


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 8:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Pero said:
Well a piece of shit and a candy bar are the same "at base" too.

krodha wrote:
Yes the same principle, in other indian traditions a metaphor is used of mistaking a rope for a snake. At first it appears to be a snake, but as you approach it you find out that it was a rope all along.

Here's the video of your metaphor...
and bill murray achieves enlightenment at the end.
(*Edit - The video embedding is disabled, it's "Caddyshack - Jaws!" on youtube)
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
It is the same cognizant awareness at base.

Pero said:
So they are not the same. Thanks.

krodha wrote:
It is the same. I'll use a symbol to try to convey it.

Take a look at this image:



If you look at it as if you're looking from above it looks like a pentagon with three lines which intersect in the middle.

But if you look at it from a side perspective it appears as a 3 dimensional cube.

Both are the same image. Only your perception is switching between the two "states".

At 'base' the image is the same.

But with the shift of your perception; the image takes on different appearances.

Experience is like this.

And the shift in perception between dualistic and nondual awareness is the same as this image.

Edit* image was way too big


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 7:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Pero said:
The same awareness as what?

kirtu said:
Ordinary awareness and enlightened awareness are the same awareness.

Pero said:
I have never seen or heard that anywhere myself.
It's just enlightened awareness has been obscured by the habit of ignorance.
Well then, they are not the same are they?

krodha wrote:
It is the same cognizant awareness at base. The "ordinary" aspect of it(avidya) is due to habitual patterns of identifying with certain aspects of experience which obscure it. And the illusion of dualism(a subject and object relationship) governs experience. When these obscurations are seen for what they are(which are mostly projections) that same awareness appears as everything(vidya/rigpa). The starting and ending point is the same space of awareness.


"If you simply recognize your essence, you are immediately face to face with the three kayas. It is so simple that it is actually incredibly easy. There is no way you could miss it. The problem, in fact, is that it's too easy! It's too close to oneself. Some great masters have said the fault lies in not that it is complicated, but that it is too simple. People don't trust it. They think "This is just my present state of being awake, so what use is it? It's not very special. I want something astounding, something totally different. Something that is far superior to this present state of wakefulness. Something with amazing lights and great splendor". And they ignore their present natural state of mind and hope that something extraordinary will happen, maybe coming down from above. They are right; the present state is not that special. But by sitting and hoping like that, they turn their backs on the innate three kayas."

"The phrase 'single sphere of dharmakaya' refers simply to this original wakefulness."

- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche (As It Is Vol. 1)


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 6:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Pero said:
This is why awareness sucks as a translation of rigpa. That is talking about Rigpa, not ordinary awareness we all have.

krodha wrote:
It's the same awareness, only the perception has been altered. If you don't want to believe me, that is ok. I don't blame you, i'm just some joe schmoe on a message board It's not the type of thing you can be convinced of... convincing you would mean you just adopted a different belief anyways. The experience of the altered perception is required... that becomes the 'torch of certainty'.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 6:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
You weren't conscious when you were born? You weren't awake and aware? You weren't alive? Perceiving? Seeing? Hearing? Touching? Tasting? Smelling?

You can't be serious with that statement! I'll just go ahead an assume you're associating the term 'awareness' with the notion of 'awareness in it's full state' but when i say awareness...
That plain old boring awareness which you just claimed you didn't have, but allowed you to be awake and type your response = the dharmakaya... it just isn't apparent, which is why dzogchen is a method to realize this.

Pero said:
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Anyway, I'm afraid that plain old boring awareness is not the dharmakaya at all. But is just plain old boring awareness which everyone has to smaller or greater degrees.

krodha wrote:
Maybe this text not coming from my mouth, but mirroring my sentiments will clarify what i'm trying to convey a little better.

Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness), the method for entering into it involves three considerations:
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces behind.
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything.
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own condition without constructing anything,
awareness, at that moment, in itself is quite ordinary.
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without any discursive thoughts),
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid clarity without anyone being there who is the observer;
only a naked manifest awareness is present.
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being created by anything whatsoever.
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity and emptiness.
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything.
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated because it is lucid and present.
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear in terms of being many.
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things because it is inseparable and of a single flavor.
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything outside itself.

Within this (intrinsic awareness), the Trikaya (Triple Bodies) are inseparable and fully present as one.
Since it is empty and not created anywhere whatsoever, it is The Dharmakaya (Dharma-Body).
Since its luminous clarity represents the inherent transparent radiance of emptiness, it is the Sambhogakaya (Reward-Body / Utility-Body).
Since its arising is nowhere obstructed or interrupted, it is the Nirmanakaya.
These three (the Trikaya) being complete and fully present as one are its very essence.
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things.

When you are introduced in this way through this exceedingly powerful method for entering into the practice,
(You discover directly) that your own immediate self-awareness is just this (and nothing else),
and that it has an inherent self-clarity, which is entirely un-fabricated.
How can you then speak of not understanding the nature of the mind?
Moreover, since you are meditating without finding anything there to meditate upon,
how can you say that your meditation does not go well?
Since your own manifest intrinsic awareness is just this,
how can you say that you cannot find your own mind?
The mind is just that which is thinking:
And yet, although you have searched (for the thinker), how can you say that you do not find him?
With respect to this, nowhere does there exist the one who is the cause of (mental) activity.
And yet, since activity exists, how can you say that such activity does not arise?
Since merely allowing (thoughts) to settle into their own condition, without trying to modify them in any way, is sufficient,
How can you say that you are not able to remain in a calm state?
Since allowing (thoughts) to be just as they are, with out trying to do anything about them, is sufficient,
How can you say that you are not able to do anything with regard to them?
Since clarity, awareness, and emptiness are inseparable and are spontaneously self-perfected,
how can you say that nothing is accomplished by your practice?
Since (intrinsic awareness) is self-originated and spontaneously self-perfected without any antecedent causes or conditions,
How can you say that you are not able to accomplish anything by your efforts?
Since the arising of discursive thoughts and their being liberated occur simultaneously,
how can you say that you are unable to apply an antidote?
Since your own immediate awareness is just this,
how can you say that you do not know anything with regard to it?.........

........When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
If there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being projected,
And when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
If there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking them,
Then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without anything being projected.
Since the Clear Light of your own intrinsic awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakaya;
and this is like the sun rising in a cloudless illuminated sky.
Even though this light cannot be said to possess a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be fully known.
The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is especially significant.......

......How wonderful!
This immediate intrinsic awareness is insubstantial and lucidly clear:
Just this is the highest pinnacle of all views.
It is all encompassing, free of everything, and without any conceptions whatsoever:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all meditations.
It is un-fabricated and inexpressible in worldly terms:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all courses of conduct.
Without being sought after, it is spontaneously self-perfected from the very beginning:
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all fruits......

- Padmasambhava (Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness)


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 5:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
Well....." i suppose it's my nature "...what nature is this....I find no such nature. Is this yours only?

krodha wrote:
I guess i should have worded it "i suppose it's IN my nature" like i'm predisposed to engaging in activity like that. I mean your nature conventionally... in a personality sense. For example; it's in some people's nature to go to bars and get drunk and fight people. And it's in others peoples nature to do charity work and help others in need.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
When you were born, you did have awareness?

Pero said:
No and that's the same for every other normal human.

krodha wrote:
You weren't conscious when you were born? You weren't awake and aware? You weren't alive? Perceiving? Seeing? Hearing? Touching? Tasting? Smelling?

You can't be serious with that statement! I'll just go ahead an assume you're associating the term 'awareness' with the notion of 'awareness in it's full state' but when i say awareness... i mean awareness, plain old boring awareness. Awareness = having knowledge or cognizance.

Awareness synonyms: aware, cognizant, conscious, awake, alert, watchful, vigilant, sentient.

You're clearly a sentient being endowed with awareness, otherwise you'd be lifeless.

That plain old boring awareness which you just claimed you didn't have, but allowed you to be awake and type your response = the dharmakaya... it just isn't apparent, which is why dzogchen is a method to realize this.

Understand that Dzogchen is a teaching which is meant to reveal your primordially pure enlightened state which has been absolutely perfect since beginningless time. It is a direct path because it goes straight to the crux of the issue and introduces you to your innate perfection, so you can know it, and then integrate it into your experience. Which isn't acquiring something new. It's a shift in perception which allows what has always been there to shine in it's unimpeded glory and fullness.

You're working under the assumption that you are something like a caterpillar who one day is in chrysalis and then you become the butterfly. But this teaching says you are already a butterfly and this fact is only obscured by your own habitual behaviors and conditioning.

You aren't a normal human... YOU AREN'T ANYTHING YOU CAN CONCEIVE YOURSELF TO BE. That which you truly are, you cannot know, you can only BE. So abandon all your ideas of what you are. And seek to know the nature of this awareness... the luminous clarity which shines on experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
ronnewmexico said:
Seems true enough..but this..."i just like to inspire people and get people going

I don't get that..why that?

What would make one think such a thing is necessary?

krodha wrote:
It isn't necessary, i suppose it's my nature. If i engage with another, discussing subject matter that sits close to both of our hearts. And we both can mutually benefit from the conversation and enjoy having that conversation. And we both can learn new things about the other person and ultimately ourselves. It's a beautiful thing.

I would love to inspire anyone. And I love when they inspire me. That is the fire which burns inside all of us. What drives us to evolve and chase dreams. I have a 3 year old son, I love when he sees something new for the first time, or witnesses something I do that he wishes to do, it's the unfolding of life and the seed which grows to be the passion with which activities, people, places etc.. are loved.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I mean in truth, these ideas like merit and rebirth are just ideas. They aren't tangible aspects of reality, one chooses to believe or disbelieve them based on opinion.

wisdom said:
They are tangible aspects of reality. Dzogchen, the natural state, is NOT a tangible aspect of reality, that's why its unconditioned, non conceptual, and so forth.

By the logic that its just an opinion and so therefore it doesn't matter what anyone does, thats nihilism.


krodha wrote:
When you were born, did you know of merit and rebirth? No, you later learned of these ideas and then attached to them taking them to be truth. A person living in the bible belt in midwest united states learned of christianity and attached to that taking it to be truth. It is your own opinion that notions of merit and rebirth have any authority. There is no authority in merit and rebirth as ideas.

When you were born, you did have awareness? It has been with you your whole life, and is 100% undeniable... The authority of your awareness is IN the awareness itself. Because without it, there would be NOTHING. It is a tangible aspect of reality because you cannot deny it's existence, but it is also intangible because if you look for it you cannot find it. This is why it is known as 'empty'. You cannot say it is, and you cannot say it is not. It transcends all notions of it, and is at the same the the source of those notions, and those notions themselves.

It's not that it doesn't 'matter' what anyone does. The value of an action, which designates how much it matters is imputed onto that action. In reality it just manifests by it's own accord. Something which has value to you, or matters to you. May not matter to someone else, or have value to them.

You only say it's nihilism because you want to insist that things 'matter'. But you cannot escape from the fact that you wishing that things matter is merely your own desire. Galaxies will collide and stars will burn out, people will die and the world will turn. It isn't seeing that it doesn't matter what people do. It's understanding that life unfolds as it does... things happen as they happen, and resisting the fact that the world is a spectrum of events which are later interpreted as 'good and bad deeds' brings suffering. It is being able to flow with life.

I myself never said "so it doesn't matter what anyone does" you are projecting that onto the possibility that your opinion may be nothing more than an opinion. Because you identify with that feeling and want it to be real. It makes YOU who you are... what you are. You want it to matter what people do because you want life to have meaning and purpose.

The meaning and the purpose, and what matters and what doesn't matter; are only what you say they are. Otherwise you have the natural state, unconditioned, non-conceptual, and so forth.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 18th, 2011 at 3:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Let me first say i genuinely appreciate the time and thought you put into responding. It hasn't been easy to frame answers to these questions in a way that can clarify but i did my best. Don't believe anything i say, just please apply it to your present experience and look. Investigate.

Dechen Norbu said:
Indeed, but your experience of it is real.
Let me try to put it in another way. Imagine you dream with tasty strawberries. You taste them and they are delicious! They smell delicious too! You can pick them, play with them, eat them and have a pleasant experience. Now, when you wake up, your precious strawberries are nowhere to be seen!
And it's not because you ate them either! Those strawberries were never real in the first place. Nevertheless, your experience was quite real.
The same goes for your life. It's dream like. You find that out when you die. The fact that duality is ultimately unreal, doesn't mean your experience of duality is unreal. At least not more unreal than those delicious strawberries you had so much fun with in your dream.

krodha wrote:
Yes the experience is real, however the perception had of the experience is what needs adjusting.

Dechen Norbu said:
I beg to differ. It's acknowledging a fact, not giving it power, not even subtly. We live dualisticaly. The point when you no longer live dualistically is enlightenment. All actions of body, speech and mind are perfectly integrated.

krodha wrote:
I see what you're saying, although I personally wouldn't call it a fact, but coming from your point of view i understand and can respect that it certainly seems to be a fact. What I'm trying to convey by saying that your statement subtly gives power to the illusion; is that at base, the nature of dualism is the presence of a subject-object dichotomy, so the presupposition(which granted is due to conditioning) that experience is exclusively dualistic actually reinforces the seeming duality. The idea that an individual can(at some point in time) attain a state of nonduality is spoiled by the notion that there is will be an individual who will populate that nondual state. By definition an individual(subject) automatically suggests what isn't that individual(other). They are mutually interdependent co-emergent qualities. So this subject is never going to reach nonduality, and that is because the subject automatically creates object. To reach a state of nonduality, it needs to be seen that what is taken to be a subject is a misconception, and what is taken to be objective is a misconception. The 'nondual' state is THIS state RIGHT NOW. Only the perception of right now, is altered dramatically.

Dechen Norbu said:
Then a worm is enlightened, I suppose, according to your ideas. Avidya, primordial ignorance, is the source of dualism. Not thoughts. If you remain in instant presence while thinking, thoughts no longer convey separation as you say. Key point again, integration. Sometimes people fail to understand such a simple concept. Recognize your natural state and slowly train to integrate every action without losing by distracting yourself.

krodha wrote:
Yes avidya is the source of dualism. And you're right the thoughts can't be the source of dualism because the thoughts have no authority aside from the authority imputed upon them by the seeming individual. But thought and conceptualization is the separating factor when avidya is apparent. And you're right, if you are in instant presence, thoughts no longer convey separation. But they truly don't convey separation right now in this moment either. There is no worm apart from sensory qualities and no sensory qualities apart from awareness.

Edit* Fuggit

Dechen Norbu said:
Language and karmic vision arise because of that notion, that has primordial ignorance at its root. It isn't language that causes avidya. It's a consequence of it (although it is a complex process, not a direct consequence). It may reinforce our ignorance though. I'm not sure if that isn't what you mean.



krodha wrote:
Yes, it is the main reinforcing agent... coupled with the notion of time.


Dechen Norbu said:
I think "The Supreme Source" should be restricted... you reinforce this idea of mine.
I don't know what to say, really. IMO, you say some good things there, but then you also say some really bad ones, perhaps because of context. That makes me wonder if you really understood what you read. Hey, maybe I just don't get you, friend.

krodha wrote:
Yeah i'm not sure about the supreme source, i own it but haven't really read much of it. I'm not parroting something i've read. I'm trying to describe a state of being that is so simple yet ridiculously hard to describe using conventional language. A lot of what i say are statements i would actually contradict or negate as the process moved along, because what is ended up with is an experience which transcends anything you can say about it.  I also wish you could get what i'm saying. I suppose some things i say could be interpreted as "bad"... i just like to inspire people and get people going. I don't know about any books being restricted, the knowledge will sink in to those who are ready to absorb it, the problem with dzogchen is that it's so radical.... and in many cases completely flips other aspects of the teachings on their heads, that it can become a dangerous ideology in the hands of someone who isn't mature enough to grasp it. They may interpret it as a means to live lawlessly and do whatever they want. It is a radical message. That is why it was kept 'secret' as a higher teaching. Only those mature enough to handle it were 'let in' on the secret. That's why you had teachers and students out in the jungle transmitting teachings orally, whispering through bamboo chutes. One website puts it this way "I suspect that they understood perfectly well that there is no Law of Karma. Their real concern was not that Dzogchen was wrong, but that it is administratively inconvenient. The important thing was that it not be taught to the masses - because the masses' belief in the Law is, supposedly, what keeps them in line. Often a compromise was reached: Dzogchen was permitted, but only if it were kept Very Secret, and taught only to the elite.

Dechen Norbu said:
Edit:
PS- Don't take my words in the wrong way, OK? Your practice and your understanding is yours alone and I'm not in your mind to understand if you are making confusions or not. I'm just saying what it looks like to me. Just be careful to understand the teachings properly and be sure you have them in the correct perspective. Keep in mind this Padmasambha's quote that goes more or less like "Although my view is higher than the sky, my actions are as fine as grains of flour."

Best wishes.

krodha wrote:
Definitely haven't taken your words the wrong way. I can see where it's missing the mark, it's just hard to explain to clarify.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2011 at 6:20 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Dechen Norbu said:
I'm not Nandrol, by any means, but let me share my thoughts about what you say.
I don't see the contradiction...

"by affirming the law of cause and effect of positive and negative deeds, they would cover my true condition with conjectures"

The true condition is not the effect of any cause. If people try to access it based on any causal principle, they'll never discover it. It can't be caused by something neither it is dependent of anything.
However, while we live dualistically, causes and effects affect us. So, if by accumulating bad karma and ripening its effects we have a life experience that doesn't allow us to recognize our true condition, we better be careful and avoid generating further negative karma.
So I don't see the contradiction. Does this address your point, Adamantine?

All the best.

krodha wrote:
But the issue remains that the seeming duality is unreal. So to say "while we live dualistically" is subtly giving power to the illusion and presupposes that at some point one will no longer be living dualistically. Thought is the only thing that conveys separation. There are no 'objects' aside from thought. Thought cuts up seamless fields of sensory perception because thought is by nature linear and fragmented. Were conditioned by thought and language because it's the only means we have to communicate and for that reason it's a beautiful thing. But it's a double edged sword, because it gives rise to a notion of separation. We become conditioned to identify with a certain cluster of sensations.. Visual and tactile that we call the body. But apart from seeing and feeling there is no body. Apart from hearing there are no sounds. And tactile, visual, auditory sensations aren't separate from awareness. And they only ever arise in the immediate moment. So in truth sensory perceptions is again another abstraction created by conceptualizing. The sensory fields are awareness.. Or consciousness.. Or the base or whatever label you want to give it.. It's beyond it. And it doesn't exist in time it only exists 'now'.. You can't even say 'now' because that implies 'not now'.. Which is why it's timeless.  But the point I'm making is that duality is an illusion. There's no entity or character to get to there from here. There's only the nondual reality. Most are just conditioned to project duality and separation habitually. But it's a dream. We dream a person, we dream a world, we dream time, we dream it all. You are the supreme source dreaming you're this person. And the dreamed person is trying to find the source which is impossible. It's here and it's now. All that was born was a concept and all that dies is a concept. You can die today and shine in your full glory as luminous timeless nondual vastness. Stop accepting the unreal to be real, find what doesn't come and go and stay there. You aren't in the body, you aren't in the mind, they are in you. And 'you' is an idea arising timelessly in awareness as awareness. Yet 'awareness' is still another idea. You're already 'that'.. Don't seek to become, just seek to understand why it isn't apparent.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 17th, 2011 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:



Adamantine said:
N, I generally completely am in agreement with everything you state above and is how I have been taught but having just read a passage in the Kunjed Gyalpo, perhaps you could clarify the seeming contradiction for me?

This is from the "SUPREME SOURCE" translation from ChNN and A. Clemente Pg 140 "Do not make my teaching known to those who follow the vehicles based on cause and effect! If you do, by affirming the law of cause and effect of positive and negative deeds, they would cover my true condition with conjectures, and for a long time they would lose any possibility of meeting me."

krodha wrote:
This is exactly my point thank you for posting this. For those who give power to the notion of time, positive actions, negative actions etc... They obscure the innate nondual nature of their ever present awareness. You can't find it in time. Because the would be finder is an abstraction. Likewise deeds appear before the awareness which allows them to 'be'. The awareness is nonconceptual, only thought judges. And thought coupled with the illusion of cause and effect(time) gives the false appearance of an individual. Really all that is.. Is only awareness(and not even awareness because that is a label). Good, bad, time, self, no-self etc.. Are all conjectures and giving power to the conjectures obscures the innate ever shining awareness which is the source of everything(and everything). Even though everything is a conjecture as well because the source or base is all that exists.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


Namdrol said:
The potion you are missing is that as long as you are under the influence of afflictions, you will engage in actions. Actions will result in suffering. The purpose of accumulating merit (from a Dzogchen perspective) is to maintain higher rebirth in samsara and create favorable conditions for meeting the teachings, and of course, to dedicate it to others.

krodha wrote:
That's the very same thing I've been saying in this thread so I'm not quite sure how I've been missing that. But that is all secondary to what Dzogchen is pointing to anyways... your innate and uncontrived awareness which is ever present is prior to and inclusive of all is the starting and ending point. I mean we both understand that accumulating merit and implements of that nature belong to mahayoga and anuyoga... the atiyoga is the instantaneous and spontaneous self perfected state. These other practices are supports and are all well and good in their place... but if taken to be a definitive aspects of dzogchen they obscure the fundamental principle of the teaching. The seeming reality of the individual is the seed of the ignorance which obscures one's primordial awareness from being present in it's full form as the nondual reality. The individual is an abstraction, so actions which benefit the illusory individual only reinforce the abstraction.

Accumulating merit (which is an adopted notion in and of itself) to maintain a higher rebirth (another adopted notion) in samsara doesn't free one from samsara. It's the golden cage.... but still a cage. Dzogchen is saying the cage is illusory. So why not investigate why one takes the cage to be real? Instead of polishing the cage.


Namdrol said:
What you are veering towards is a sort of "Dzogchen" nihilism that will just ruin your path.

N

krodha wrote:
Nihilism? How do you interpret anything i'm saying as nihilism? I never denied the existence of anything. All that's being said is that taking part in actions which deepen and develop a delusion seems counterproductive... but to each their own... no path has been ruined here.

I mean in truth, these ideas like merit and rebirth are just ideas. They aren't tangible aspects of reality, one chooses to believe or disbelieve them based on opinion. And to boot they aren't even an integral part of dzogchen.... it stands with or without them. Awareness however(which is integral to dzogchen), is plain as day and requires no belief, it cannot be denied and it's certainly free of the four extremes, so i'm not sure where you're getting nihilism. I'm just saying affirming or denying aspects of the belief system which surrounds the teachings... and attaching to or rejecting whatever stance it is that one takes... is missing what dzogchen is about. All i'm doing is approaching the teaching empirically and experientially and questioning this paradigm that reigns supreme of marrying dzogchen with the lower yanas and insisting that's the only proper implementation of it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Right, so what i'm saying is that for those who fail to recognize their nature, they enter into actions and give credence to these notions such as karma, merit and rebirth which only serve to reify the seeming duality... thus never escaping from samsara.

Namdrol said:
You can not think yourself out of ignorance. You can not declare, "I am perfect" and then expect to awaken.

What you have to understand is the basis. The reason the basis is called "the basis" is because it has not been realized.

N

krodha wrote:
Very true and that isn't what i'm suggesting at all. Thinking "i am perfect" is exactly the same as thinking "i'm imperfect".

What i'm saying in the above statement, is that if one hasn't understood the basis, adopting these other notions only solidifies the relative state. And by acting in accordance with actions which attempt to generate positive karma and rid oneself of negative karma. Partake in activities which gain merit. And believe oneself to be a lasting individual agent which spans life cycles by adopting the idea of rebirth. The illusory subject is only reified and solidified.... and then the subject continues to take part in said activities to eventually attain liberation at some point in time which is impossible. All of these notions, karma, merit and so on(the way they are presented) say to the person; if you do these things you'll be in a more auspicious position to attain your goal, and that simply isn't true. Because the motivation is by nature automatically negating the spontaneously perfect nature which is timelessly present. One's attention isn't put on awareness but on the individual which is a misconception derived from conditioning. So the conditioning just continues. The person continues on with the idea that they can "get there" eventually. So yes you can't think yourself out of ignorance, but you truly can't act yourself out of it either. Because the ignorance is due to the very same habitual patterns of mind that those notions are based upon.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 16th, 2011 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Maybe you view this present life as more concretely real than you realize, which is why you are framing this issue in terms of "being physically reborn into another physical realm" vs "psychological rebirth." Dzogchen does not suggest such a dichotomy, but rather that this life we're living now is truly no less dream-like than the dreams we have in our sleep, and that the realms we are reborn into are likewise dream-like.

Paul said:
Nice.

Personally, I don't see why people make the distinction between this "being physically reborn into another physical realm" vs "psychological rebirth" - they're exactly the same process. And it's not like traditional teachers only ever stick to one either. Karma dictates your mental states and also will dump you in different realms. I am of the opinion that Dzogchen shows 100% that the mind isn't a creation of the body and so just limited to one existence - in fact other lives become a necessary logical result...

krodha wrote:
The distinction is made because for those who haven't assimilated the teaching via direct introduction and need to 'understand' better. Adopting a notion of physical rebirth vs psychological is akin to dismantling a house with a spoon vs a wrecking ball. They are much the same process but that is my inquiry; some don't realize that. I'm not sure if you mean mind(thoughts) or mind(consciousness) but it doesn't have to be an opinion. The body is most definitely merely a projection of mind(consciousness) and is empty.. It's a picture on a screen. And being that time is a projection of mind(thoughts) and mind(thoughts) is a projection of itself they're all empty. There cannot be a necessary logical result derived from empty projections. The delusion you take as mind(thoughts) which is all 'you' are just wants to stay alive... and projecting a lasting existence that spans a course of time is a perfect way to ensure of that.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
As if holding fast to the belief in the unreality of cause & effect and rebirth, or holding fast to any belief at all, wouldn't equally veil the natural state?



Maybe you view this present life as more concretely real than you realize, which is why you are framing this issue in terms of "being physically reborn into another physical realm" vs "psychological rebirth." Dzogchen does not suggest such a dichotomy, but rather that this life we're living now is truly no less dream-like than the dreams we have in our sleep, and that the realms we are reborn into are likewise dream-like. I've read ChNN speaking about existence in the six realms as "karmic vision" which I feel really  conveys the way there is a seeming reality - a seeming concreteness - to existence, whether in this life or another, but yet it's always simply our deluded experience.

And again, Dzogchen upadesha features a preliminary practice with the express, literal purpose of destroying the illusory seeds for illusory rebirth in illusory samsara's six realms by illusory Dzogchen practitioners.

krodha wrote:
It equally would, which is why i'm saying why propagate either extreme? I'm truly championing the empirical and experiential which doesn't communicate either extreme.

I'm proposing that for those who take rebirth to be physical (instead of focusing on the more subtle aspects of themselves which are reborn momentarily) the reification of the physical is what breathes life into the notion of the physical. If one starts to attack aspects of their habitual patterns and make this more of an inner journey which seeks to understand these projections which solidify 'physical' and then dismantle the 'psyche' as well it seems much easier to me. Experience reflects what is projected upon it. Whether one has fully integrated and experiences life to be no more real than a dream... or experiences life as a physical thing depends on the level of projection going on(the former having eradicated projection altogether).

The six realms are "karmic vision" because they are product of your state of mind. But the rebirths are going on moment to moment. One dies and is reborn every time conceptual thought subsides and then rises again. Because the individual is a projection of thought. That being the case... If you've created karmic circumstances which deliver an undesirable life situation and you reject it and become angry... you are reborn in the asura or wrathful realm as 'anger'. If you are pious and think yourself to be on a pedestal compared to others(based on your circumstances created by your actions) you are reborn into the god realm as an egotistical person. If you crave experiences which you think will fulfill you seeking materialistic possessions and are never satisfied you're reborn into the preta realms as a hungry ghost with a large belly and a small mouth that can't satiate you. If you're driven by blind lust, rage and primal instincts ignoring reasoning that could aid you you're reborn into the animal realm. Any action you make to get out of samsara, will land you in one of the six states. Realization/buddhahood is not one of the six realms. Because one cannot "get to there, from here". It cannot be 'produced'. It is uncontrived as we both said above. And this is why it's called the 'shoreless ocean of samsara' and one is bound to the cycle of rebirth eternally.

Seeing the six realms as states of the human mind and human emotion starts to put the teachings in a perspective that brings it closer to home. Because this whole process is an inner process, an inner journey. As long as the idea of 'inner' still exists in one's experience. Because you're right dzogchen doesn't suggest any dichotomies, it suggests nothing except your timeless perfection. Experience also suggests nothing. It's only projected ideation, thought, opinion, belief, translation which suggests and hinders.

One can see right now, in this moment, the non-concreteness of experience if they altered their perception. They can see that they've always been free. The life we're living now, truly is no less dream-like than dreams we have in our sleep. Both are products of mind. But seeming separation is solidified by habitual patterns of conditioning... and the plot continues to thicken.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


Pema Rigdzin said:
Making the view the main point (first its ascertainment, then fully integrating it into all one's waking and non-waking moments) is the antidote to being bound by the acknowledgment of the temporary "reality" of karma, rebirth, etc.

Respecting the fact that as long as one's lack of realization leaves one vulnerable to seemingly real samsaric experience, that one must govern oneself in such a way as to avoid the lower states of samsara, is the antidote to bringing about a samsaric existence which will likely prevent one from actually realizing Dzogchen directly. In other words, one doesn't shoot oneself in the foot by throwing attention to karma to the wind, and with it the circumstances conducive to actually realizing the view one so cherishes intellectually. The authentic view - which is not actually a view because it is completely uncontrived and non-conceptual - will eventually exhaust the mind and all its thoughts and habits altogether. But one must bring one's rigpa to sufficient strength for that to happen. If one brings rigpa to sufficient strength, then mind and samsara are no problem (for oneself).

*edited for clarity

krodha wrote:
Yes that is the antidote.

I never said throw attention to karma to the wind. I'm saying understand karma as action one partakes in which is enacted to create a desired outcome in time. The act of 'desiring an outcome' ignores the reality of karma as a law of co-emergent interdependent origination(mutually arising and contrasting attributes of experience which naturally compliment each other). Again, partaking in actions which give credence to notions which are in fact the very notions which bind one to the cycle of samsara. It's still being binded to samsara no matter how you cut it... whether it's a higher state of a lower state fails to make a difference eventually. The point is to not be in any of the six realms, buddhahood is not in any of the six states for a reason, and that is because it isn't a product of mind. I can understand attempting to create fair conditions so that one isn't trapped in undesirable life situations. But if one merely keeps up a schedule of generating auspicious karmic conditions for themselves, they remain bound.

The view cannot be cherished intellectually, you either know it, or you don't. If you've had a taste, you understand it's nature, and what is needed to fully integrate it is understood beyond doubt. Yes it's absolutely uncontrived and non-conceptual. And yes it does exhaust the mind and habitual patterns, as i said in another post... it knocks your socks off. And the mind and samsara being contrived conceptualizations which pale in comparison to the strength and vastness of your true nature are undoubtably not a problem.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 3:49 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
One of the cornerstones of this teaching is seeing that things aren't as we're conditioned to take them to be. But these presuppositions such as karma, merit and one who is born over and over only solidify the notion that we are what we're originally conditioned to think we are. I don't know if this makes any sense but i'm trying.

Pema Rigdzin said:
One must respect and acknowledge the relative for as long as one is subject to it, even when one intellectually knows it isn't true. For instance, the primordially true nature is not split into self and other, and is beyond extremes of existence and nonexistence, and therefore it is not sustained by food or anything else. But relatively, your experience is that of a sentient being whose fleshly body requires food, water, and shelter from the elements, or else it will die. Regardless of your primordial nature, if you stop tending to such fundamental yet illusory, relative needs, you will die.

Furthermore, to say that a cornerstone of this teaching is "seeing that things aren't as we're conditioned to take them to be" means to really "see" or know this directly, as in actual realization, not merely through reasoning or belief. Firmly believing that karma and rebirth are illusory does not stop them from happening. Dzogchen tantras acknowledge this fact, which is why, for instance, we have the inner rushen of purifying the six realms, the explicit purpose of which is to make it impossible to be reborn in a samsaric realm.

krodha wrote:
Well undoubtably, i never proposed ignoring such relative conditions.

And yes i mean really "see" or know this directly as in actual realization... reasoning, belief and intellectual gymnastics, will not deliver the authentic truth.

As for "firmly believing" that karma and rebirth are illusory, that wasn't the message i was intending to convey. What i was saying, is that for those who hold fast to the concrete reality of such 'rules' or 'laws', the natural innate primordially pure nature(beyond extremes) may be veiled. I was inquiring into the nature of believing karma to be some form of cosmic retribution that attaches to you based on good/bad deeds. And rebirth as a 'physical' rebirth and not a psychological state(which makes more sense in applying the teaching to experience). The six realms being states(realms) of the mind instead of actual physical realms. Actually making it impossible to be 'reborn' into one of those states which proliferates samsaric experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 5:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I'm simply saying by believing you are not perfect from the beginning, and have to seek this "state" you are bound by your own effort. It creates an impossible task and you become your own worst enemy. It's like walking out your front door and setting on a journey to find the planet earth, when it's underneath your feet the whole time.

mint said:
I think I understand what you are saying.  The only "effort" involved in Dzogchen is the effort of letting go, the mind still clings to object of "letting go;" therefore, the effort seems circuitous and flawed.  However, as the teachings themselves seem to suggest, the remedy is pure motivation, the accumulation of merit, purification of the obscurations, in conjunction with bodhicitta.

krodha wrote:
Yes in a sense, but you're right it isn't even letting go but more of a reconfiguring of perception. Which I guess is letting go of old habits in a way, but more like seeing that those habitual patters were dependent on a misconception. It's like the saying "I once was blind, but now I can see". The remedy is the motivation to investigate and be open. And the purification of obscurations is accounting for presuppositions, conditioning and habitual patterns which obscure and bringing them to your conscious attention so youre no longer a victim of them. And yes in conjunction with bodhicitta(relative) because seeking liberation for yourself(a self that is born of the same presuppositions and habitual patterns) is a natural safeguard because an illusion cannot attain an illusion. Which absolute bodhicitta reveals this giving birth to true unconditional love and compassion.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Seems to only obscure and delay any assimilation in my eyes. I've never understood (aside from helping with ascending conduct) the presence of these notions in dzogchen. Your nature is primordially pure and perfect from beginningless time, which is what dzogchen points towards.


Namdrol said:
But you did not recognize your nature, and so, under the influence of ignorance, you fall into duality and enter into actions, thus never escaping from samsara.

Another way of putting it that I noticed in a Dzogchen text the other day "Vidyā is seeing the substance of the mind. Avidyā is not seeing the substance of the mind". We mostly continue in a state of avidyā.

N

krodha wrote:
Right, so what i'm saying is that for those who fail to recognize their nature, they enter into actions and give credence to these notions such as karma, merit and rebirth which only serve to reify the seeming duality... thus never escaping from samsara. True Vidyā and Avidyā are the same pointers. But all i'm saying is that believing that you are an individual who takes on karma due to good or bad actions just continues to breathe life into dualism, samsara and avidyā. I guess it's hard because it's really counter-intuitive to tell someone that entering into action to get to a goal (using methods as a means to an end) negates your innate perfection that dzogchen points towards. The natural state is completely uncontrived.

Taking karma or merit to be something like "sin" in western religion is a grave misunderstanding in my eyes. And attaching to a belief that you die and are reborn again gives credence to the idea that you're this separate individual agent existing in time, and that you are a subject to objective happenings and cause and effect. Experience (which is what dzogchen is based on) communicates none of these notions, only beliefs and ideas which have been accepted and taken as truths do. So this is what Longchenpa was saying at the end of that excerpt i posted... "Constantly deconstructing, investigating keenly" none of these presuppositions hold any water, and seeing this opens the door to remaining in the natural state effortlessly, because it's effortless by nature. It's here now, it shines in it's fullness but giving power to dualities constructed in mind produces a subtle diminution of awareness. It creates a wall which isn't there, and then instead of saying "look, this wall isn't real" these implements which reify the wall are kept alive and it seemingly obscures the unreality of it all.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 15th, 2011 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
So again my inquiry into how karma, merit and transmigration truly apply in dzogchen stands.

Pema Rigdzin said:
It's so simple: Knowing the natural state is nirvana. Not knowing it is samsara. Whenever one is not in the knowledge (rigpa) of the natural state , samsara - including karma; emotional & physical ups and downs; the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth - is one's experience. It very obviously doesn't matter an iota that none of it is truly existent.

It's kind of silly that this conversation has to be had over and over among people who are not awakened and clearly know that their suffering and ripening of karma haven't disappeared just because Dzogchen theory makes eminent sense.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't know about conversations like this being held over and over, suffering is due to being bound to your karma, which is action seeking a result in time. I can't call dzogchen a theory, due to the fact it has real empirical application beyond theory and belief. I'm simply saying by believing you are not perfect from the beginning, and have to seek this "state" you are bound by your own effort. It creates an impossible task and you become your own worst enemy. It's like walking out your front door and setting on a journey to find the planet earth, when it's underneath your feet the whole time.

One of the cornerstones of this teaching is seeing that things aren't as we're conditioned to take them to be. But these presuppositions such as karma, merit and one who is born over and over only solidify the notion that we are what we're originally conditioned to think we are. I don't know if this makes any sense but i'm trying.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 6:21 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well that's good because it surely is blah blah blah!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 4:12 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
heart said:
If you don't understand mind (sem), which is what is under the spell of cause and effect, how can you possibly understand rigpa? In the natural state, there is no karma because the natural state is free from mind (sem), this is what Longchenpa is talking about. Of course if you are under the illusion that you are in the natural state most of the time, like some other in this forum, none of this will make any sense for you.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
You must have missed where i said the inquiry was rhetorical, i wasn't asking for myself, but i appreciate the response! I understand about as far as one intellectually can, but the intellect only goes so far.

But to critique your statement...

The would be 'understander' of mind (sem), is the mind (sem) itself, which is again a projection of itself into time(cause and effect) and time has no reality apart from thoughts/memories which constitute said mind (sem). So how can mind be "understood" at all? The mind (sem) as an entity has no reality. And time(cause and effect) equally has no reality. The seeming arising of consecutive thought/events gives birth to a false notion of time which creates the illusion of a substratum that endures as a subject in relation to objective experience. But the notion of time is a projection of that same present thought(appearing as memory/anticipation) and therefore negates the reality of an enduring subjective substratum(self) and complementary objective experience(world). Further, this negates the illusion of any dualities which support the seeming existence of distance and/or spatial relations(founded on the same misconception of a reference point). Thus the projected trifecta of experience(knower, knowing, known) is equally empty of inherent reality and innate 'experiential' assimilation of this truth collapses the unreal into a state of pure innate 'being' (which is itself empty). What "is" appears timelessly void of distinction, dimension or proliferation. I know full well what Longchenpa is talking about, but being that the natural state IS what is, the mirage called myself(or others) which is nothing more than the "natural state" in it's self-liberated suchness (being perverted through these empty projections) has no authority to make any such claim. And because that is the case; none of you (nor I) will ever be in the natural state most of the time... because no attribute listed in this sentence has any reality apart from conventional language.

So again my inquiry into how karma, merit and transmigration truly apply in dzogchen stands.

And i only mean the inquiry in a productive and innocent manner to spark friendly conversation! I value all opinions and points of view


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Aside from helping with ascending conduct in a sense, how does the notion of karma(in a cosmic retribution sense), merit(in a positive/negative schematic attached to an individual) and rebirth(in a cycle of physical births/deaths) apply to dzogchen? I mean this question rhetorically but i'd also like to hear what people have to say.

Seems to only obscure and delay any assimilation in my eyes. I've never understood (aside from helping with ascending conduct) the presence of these notions in dzogchen. Your nature is primordially pure and perfect from beginningless time, which is what dzogchen points towards. And when embodied and applied to experience is undeniably true. Yet these notions from the other yanas linger and spill over into the view of many who post on here(which is perfectly fine in the context of a lot of the discussions on here). It seems to only veil this expedited and direct path which is dzogchen. It's all well and good either way, to each their own, but i guess i'm just surprised how much these aspects of the teachings take precedent here.

Ideas of rebirth, karma, merit etc.. are spoken of as if they can apply in this teaching which naturally points to a state of perfection prior to dualistic notions. These things need to be attached to an individual which doesn't exist on the absolute platform. They have their purpose and part but if they're taken as concrete "laws" applying to someone aspiring to become something in time, the dzogchen is obscured from that point of reference and the relative state forever prevails(which actually isn't even true but seems to be the case relatively and in the context of the view which reigns supreme).

"The actual essence, pristine gnosis, 
cannot be improved upon, so virtue is profitless,
and it cannot be impaired, so vice is harmless;
in it's absence of karma there is no ripening of pleasure or pain;
in it's absence of judgement, no preference for samsara or nirvana;
in it's absence of articulation, it has no dimension;
in it's absence of past and future, rebirth is an empty notion;
who is there to transmigrate? And how to wander?
What is karma and how can it mature?
Contemplate the reality that is like the clear sky!

Constantly deconstructing, investigating keenly, 
not even the slightest substance can be found;
and in the undivided moment of nondual perception
we abide in the natural state of perfection."

- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 8:15 AM
Title: Re: Guardians of the Teaching
Content:



samdrup said:
To be honest, I never have so I don't know!...but I would do Tsok (ganapuja) to repair Samaya.

mint said:
Oh, the way you said it, it sounded as if the empowerment came with some caveats.  I wouldn't want you to break your samaya and be eaten by a guardian.

krodha wrote:
You can just do chod and get eaten by a guardian, you'd be a minty fresh treat for the black troma. Mint: the appetizer, main course and dessert. She's hungry


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Guardians of the Teaching
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I've always been taught to not take it lightly...

Kilaya said:
Not taking it lightly is one thing, but fearing protectors as if they were some hostile beings may not be the right attitude. Of course, we respect them and we don't try to use them for selfish goals or harmful acts against others, but apart from that I don't see why invoking them for the sake of our spiritual development would be dangerous or wrong.

krodha wrote:
Yes i'd say it's definitely not the right attitude to fear anything in these teachings. Aside from the schematic of a practitioner-deity relationship it's also good to keep in mind that these guardians are not separate from us at base. But are merely aspects of our true nature which transcends these seeming dualities reinforced by our conditioning. They are meant for aid, inspiration, strength, courage and on some levels may not be anything other than archetypal in nature and implements to fortify our own intention and certainty we project into our practice and path.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Guardians of the Teaching
Content:
mint said:
So, there's no guardians who can aid the beginning student of Dzogchen? or, it's useless? or, it's too harmful?

asunthatneversets said:
I was told not to mess with Ekajati, Rahula or Dorje Legpa by yourself unless you're a well assimilated practitioner. That calling on them in a group setting like a ganapuja or something is cool but by yourself is not a good idea. I've also been told that if you want to call upon wrathful protectors such as those i mentioned to help you in practice you WILL attain your goal, be it realization or whatever... but you'll lose touch with everyone in your life who isn't a dharma practitioner.

mint said:
Why is it not a good idea?  What ill effects have been noted of calling upon these guardians by one's self?  If you've received the empowerment, isn't that technically a license to call upon the guardian yidams when going solo?

krodha wrote:
I couldn't even say why it isn't a good idea, i'm merely regurgitating what someone else has told me when it comes to the rules and regulations of deity yoga. So take my statements with a grain of salt and based on what others have said on here i'll probably re-evaluate my own notions of it as well. The only thing i can say is that my source has been a dharma practitioner for 50 years and he's highly knowledgeable, well-traveled and well-informed on most things when it comes to anu/atiyoga. But that doesn't validate what's said... and it may very well be a case of different traditions having different beliefs and opinions which may contrast each other like someone said above. Stick to what your sangha practices (which sounds like it's the same community i belong to, ChNN knows whats right).

I'd say if you want to go with a guardian to aid practice in the beginning (or at any time) use Padmasambhava(Guru Rinpoche). But really if you just dedicate the merit ('om dhare dhare bhandare svaha jaya...' etc..) at the end of practice, and be sure to keep the intention in mind that you're doing practice for the benefit of all sentient beings you're golden.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: Guardians of the Teaching
Content:
krodha wrote:
Yeah i'm just parroting what i've been told. I attach no weight or validity to any of those ideas they could be completely unfounded for all i know. I'm actually not one to adhere to any of the dogmatic aspects of these teachings... it is funny to see myself mirroring notions like that which have been planted into me subconsciously by those i've come into contact with. For some reason those who attend the ling i go to sometimes really do put the guardians i mentioned up on a pedestal, in the sense that one shouldn't perform said practices unless they're at a certain level (which is counter-intuitive to dzogchen altogether). But namdrol is right be careful about who is saying what on here, i am a student of ChNN but that doesn't mean i'm exempt from propagating statements which are rumors being paraded as some kind of truth.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
catmoon said:
Isn't forced liberation a contradiction in terms?

Virgo said:
Really, it actually manifests for them due to their merit.  Because of my practice any one who comes into contact with me will be liberated.  It is a simple fact.  This is not because of me, but because of the blessings of the Dharma.  I have never created an ounce of any good.  And any ounce of goodness that may have been created by me was done completely on accident.

If you say certain mantras etc., then anyone who touches you, hears you, sees you, etc., makes a strong connection to the Dharma.

Kevin

krodha wrote:
Anyone who comes into contact with you will be liberated? What makes you say that? (Aside from the blessings of the dharma reason you mentioned). I'm not attempting to negate your statement i'm just curious about how one would come to such a conclusion. A strong conclusion at that by stating its "a simple fact". Just curious! I guess the statement depends on your definition of 'liberation' (again aside from one free of negative forces/suffering and who knows all phenomena) as well.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2011 at 7:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchenpa by Accident?
Content:
krodha wrote:
And if they're interested you'll know it. Because they'll pursue the conversation and want to know about it. If they don't care and seem uninterested you'll most likely never create a connection, but the seed will be planted at least, even subconsciously. It's best to never push it upon anyone, for a lot of people that will automatically turn them off to it. And that goes for anything not just dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 13th, 2011 at 7:01 AM
Title: Re: Guardians of the Teaching
Content:
krodha wrote:
I was told not to mess with Ekajati, Rahula or Dorje Legpa by yourself unless you're a well assimilated practitioner. That calling on them in a group setting like a ganapuja or something is cool but by yourself is not a good idea. I've also been told that if you want to call upon wrathful protectors such as those i mentioned to help you in practice you WILL attain your goal, be it realization or whatever... but you'll lose touch with everyone in your life who isn't a dharma practitioner. I have a rahula statue in my room.. and a huge thangka with only those 3, Ekajati, Rahula and Dorje Legpa on it. I favor the wrathful beings by personal preference.. but don't do practices to invoke them unless i'm in a group setting.

And yes traditionally you're supposed to receive those certain transmissions to do their mantras and practices. Supposedly doing the practices without the transmissions will deliver zero results and may hinder your progress. I've always been taught to not take it lightly... and if you aren't sure of something don't act on it until you are sure. It's one of those things you can choose to believe or not, but in either case know you're gambling if the cards aren't in your favor.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, December 10th, 2011 at 6:43 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist way to deal with fleas
Content:
krodha wrote:
He goes into the reasoning behind having to take action eventually in this interview, which is cut off unfortunately in this video. But... this thread made me remember this interview.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 8th, 2011 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
alpha said:
When it comes to doing the SMS the explanation of various practices contained in Precious Vase one has to do is very sparse and incomplete.

Ex. In the investigation on" How one is beguiled by Diverse secondary causes" there is only one paragraph of 6 or 7 lines .That's it...There is no more of how you should investigate and how you formulate in your head this investigation....
Or another example is Kumbaka....I honestly do not understand how you do it...

And these practices are among many others who seem vague and incomplete.

So the question is how one studies the P.V for the SMS when the information given is incomplete...?

Yeeeah.....How do you practice Kumbaka from  a book??????

krodha wrote:
Because formulating an investigation in your head IS being beguiled. The practice is to remain relaxed and present, in this present moment... whatever arises you just let it be as it is... and go as it goes, and that includes thoughts. It does itself. "You" don't have to "do" anything.

All the practices are supports to help you do the main practice if you can't seem to. None of them are necessary. Be careful of the SMS too just because people can read and recite facts from the precious vase doesn't mean they KNOW the teaching. It's like reading and reciting baseball statistics, doesn't mean you know anything about the ins and outs of playing the game on the field.

Kumbaka isn't necessary either. It's a secondary practice. Like yantra yoga, like guru yoga, like any of it... they're all methods.

If you can see what you're being pointed to, and rest in that, it will do the work for you... all effort (though it may be needed on some levels) is ultimately misleading... and if you don't know when to let go of the practice.. or know what you're looking for in the practice. Then you're lost.

Someone told me something that helped me tremendously when i first started all this... and they said it even before i started. They said "never stray from the basic message... don't get caught up in the bullshit"

wise words.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 1:14 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Religious Pluralism
Content:


mint said:
Everything is a display of wisdom.

krodha wrote:
At some point, if you experience it yourself... you'll have to see that the state which dzogchen reveals is the same state which causes the few catholics(or persons of whatever denominations) who experience it to say "i've seen god". And that state is prior to thoughts and concepts which would place it into a certain belief system. You have to 'believe' catholicism. What dzogchen points to requires no belief. The visualizations of Garab Dorje or Padmasambhava or what have you... dakinis and all the rest of it are all supportive practices (not to be reified as truly existing objective elements of experience like catholicism projects) which are implemented to take you to the culmination or reveal the state in its fullness. And the culmination or a small taste of it will knock your socks off. In that state the notion of you being an individual in relation to a belief system with rules and regulations will be seen for what they are, which are mere constructs in mind. As a subject relating to an object you partake in catholicism and abide by it's teachings, you identify with concepts, ideas, thoughts, notions which construct your experience to be a certain way. But if dzogchen is applied earnestly and correctly, it will annihilate the concreteness of these subject/object dichotomies... and as others were saying in this thread, the concepts, ideas, thoughts, notions (which ARE catholicism) will be ornaments of that state.. they'll BE that state... timeless, unborn, undying. And yes you'd still be free to partake in catholicism (or any activity for that matter... worship satan.. whatever) you'd be swimming in yourself... and even that is a misleading notion. I'm not sure if you grasp the monumental degree of this teaching but until it's experienced it will remain on the level with catholicism as a nice idea.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 11:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Paul...thanks for the reply

Alpha...I wasnt suggesting rules/limitations. Just giving people a base of information on Dzogchen so they could have a little knowledge on how to go about following this Path. I believe that it is through doing some of the foundational practices that one is able to see more clearly just what ones limitations are and thereby deal with them. That has been my limited experience thus far.

krodha wrote:
All depends on the person and how intensely they identify with habitual patterns. It's only conditioning that creates the appearance of a path... information in those books which might serve to remove obstacles for one person, could be the very same info which misleads another. And practices which help one person can become a trap for another if they fixate on the practice... there's a very thin line to walk with reading texts and practicing.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 at 4:20 AM
Title: Anyone have info on these Garab Dorje texts?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I know most are familiar with Garab Dorje's three statements that strike the essence but I was curious to read these other texts attributed to him (according to wikipedia). I asked a friend/mentor who is very knowledgeable about dzogchen and he said the 3 statements are all that's important... which is true in a sense, but i'd still like to read these texts. I did some research online and came up with nothing so i figured i'd ask on here... figured someone would know! Where can i find the following texts?

- 'Cutting Through The Three Times' (Tibetan: དུས་གསུམ་ཆིག་ཆོད, Wylie: dus gsum chig chod)

- 'Overwhelming the Six Modes of Consciousness with Splendour' (Tibetan: ཚོགས་དྲུག་ཟིལ་གནོན, Wylie: tshogs drug zil gnon)

- 'Natural Freedom That Underlies Characteristics' (Tibetan: མཚན་མ་རང་གྲོལ, Wylie: mtshan ma rang grol)

- 'Direct Encounter with the Three Kayas' (Tibetan: སྐུ་གསུམ་ཐུག་ཕྲད, Wylie: sku gsum thug phrad)

- 'Vajra Fortress' (Tibetan: རྡོ་རྗེ་མཁར་རྫོང, Wylie: rdo rje mkhar rdzong)

- 'Deep Immersion in Awareness' (Tibetan: རིག་པ་སྤྱི་བླུགས, Wylie: rig pa spyi blugs)

I'm already familiar with 'The Golden Letters' and i know ChNN has a Garab Dorje book available... they seem to only cover the 3 statements though... which is profound and appropriate in the context of someone new to the teachings... or someone applying the teachings in the direct and stripped down experiential manner they should be. At the same time I'm sure these other writings are just as profound and insightful and i love reading these early influential and traditional texts... Mañjuśrīmitra's Bodhicittabhavana is one of my favorites so I can only imagine these are just as good... any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, December 4th, 2011 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
mint said:
What is the difference between these two books, aside from price?

http://www.shangshungstore.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=104 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.amazon.com/Cycle-Day-Night-Primordial-Essential/dp/0882680404/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322956981&sr=1-4 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

krodha wrote:
They very well might be exactly the same... i have the one from the amazon link, and that's actually an older version of it. That book has been rereleased with a newer cover since then and some updates to the text i believe. That version in the shang shung store might just be the most recent press of it. Educated guess on my part but it is speculative since i don't have the version in the shang shung link.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: About 5 years trying to practice ChNN's teachings...
Content:


padma norbu said:
Anyway, it's been about 5 years now. I thought I would be a lot further along. I also found some entries from a retreat with Jim Valby where I made the note "150 hrs x 2000 mantras/hour = you begin to get some idea what Tun is all about." HA. I have never done this much Tun in my life.

I'm really, really sucking ass at this stuff. Just thought I would share.

krodha wrote:
Sounds like you have a preconceived notion of "where" you're supposed to be.. and end up for that matter. Or "what" you're supposed to be by being further along this path. You very well might be acting as your own worst enemy in this. You seem to be identifying with ideas or stories of others experiences and gauging/comparing yourself to these notions. These methods being prescribed for people aren't the best methods for everyone... i mean honestly, no mantra is going to help you in embodying what it is that dzogchen points to. All efforts to create a result are actually reifying your apparent predicament. Dzogchen is so subtle it's easily missed and overlooked... by identifying with a conceptual path or goal you've already seemingly obscured it. It's all a subtle shift in perception... which actually radically shifts experience. But the experience is always THIS experience right now. Don't look for a result in time... be here now, and inquire into the nature of what these elements of experience such as time, space, objects etc actually are... instead of doing mantras and practices maybe try looking at the one doing these practices. What does it mean to be awake, aware, present. Forget all presuppositions you have about yourself.. that you're "such and such" a person in relation to a world and universe you live in etc... that you aren't already that.. you're already pristine, luminous, spaceless, naturally occurring timeless awareness. Investigate empirically why it is that you don't feel that in your experience... and why you don't know it to be true. Identification with thought is the main culprit... it paints a false story and gives birth to everything.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Is receiving transmission via webcast a farce?
Content:
Food_Eatah said:
What is the difference between a "transmission" and watching a teaching?

krodha wrote:
Transmission is a direct experiential introduction to the nature of your mind... watching or listening to a teaching is understanding an intellectual description of whatever the teaching is on. There's different types of transmission (and some are symbolic using the intellect) the type norbu uses is a physical method that shows you the nature of your mind. That doesn't mean one will "get it" or understand what it's pointing to every time, depends on the capacity of the practitioner. Some see it right away the first time.. some need a few transmissions to assimilate it... and for some other routes like symbolic and intellectual understanding is better. No way is wrong or right, just depends on the person... like in every day learning some people like to "see" a graph or have instructions written out to understand something and some can just listen. Doesn't matter really... all roads lead to rome.


